Project Description: VCS Version 4.

RIAU ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

CARBON PROJECT

Document Prepared by Himpanzee Pte Ltd

Project Title RIAU ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION CARBON PROJECT (RER-CP)

Version 12.5
Date of Issue 11 August 2022
Prepared By Himpanzee Pte Ltd
Contact Ralph J. Strebel
100 Peck Seah Street,
#08-14, PS 100
Singapore 079333
+65 9772 6138
ralph@himpanzee.com
www.himpanzee.com

Page 1 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

CONTENTS
RIAU ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION CARBON PROJECT ........................................... 1
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... 6
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... 7
LIST OF MAPS ....................................................................................................... 11
LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................ 13
1 PROJECT DETAILS........................................................................................... 17
1.1 Summary Description of the Project ................................................................................ 17
1.2 Sectoral Scope and Project Type .................................................................................... 18
Project Eligibility ................................................................................................................. 19
Project Design .................................................................................................................... 20
Eligibility Criteria .......................................................................................................... 20
Project Proponent .............................................................................................................. 20
Other Entities Involved in the Project ............................................................................... 22
Ownership .......................................................................................................................... 22
Legal & Ownership Requirements ............................................................................. 23
Approval of Ownership Documentation .................................................................. 23
Project Start Date .............................................................................................................. 25
WRC Activity ............................................................................................................... 25
Project Crediting Period .................................................................................................... 26
Project Scale and Estimated GHG Emission Reductions or Removals .......................... 27
Description of the Project Activity .................................................................................... 28
Summary Description of REDD+ Activity ................................................................... 28
Project Crediting Activity ........................................................................................... 28
Additional Non-Crediting Activity ............................................................................. 32
Project Activity Participants....................................................................................... 39
Project Location................................................................................................................. 40
Geographical Location ............................................................................................. 40
Geographical Boundaries ......................................................................................... 41
Project Area ................................................................................................................ 43
Conditions Prior to Project Initiation ................................................................................. 43
Environmental Conditions .......................................................................................... 44
Biodiversity Conditions ............................................................................................... 49
Compliance with Laws, Statutes and Other Regulatory Frameworks........................... 53
International Treaties .................................................................................................. 53
Laws Regulations & Decrees of the Republic of Indonesia .................................... 53
Ministerial Regulations and Decrees......................................................................... 54
Laws, Regulations, and Decrees Related to Ecosystem Restoration Concessions
and Management of Carbon Sequestration Activities ......................................................... 55
Compliance with Indonesian Laws & Regulations .................................................. 56
Participation under Other GHG Programmes ................................................................. 58
Projects Registered (or Seeking Registration) under Other GHG Programme(s) .. 58
Projects Rejected by Other GHG Programmes ....................................................... 58
Other Forms of Credit ........................................................................................................ 59
Emissions Trading Programs and Other Binding Limits ............................................. 59
Other Forms of Environmental Credit ....................................................................... 59
Additional Information Relevant to the Project .............................................................. 59
Leakage Management ............................................................................................. 59
Commercially Sensitive Information ......................................................................... 59
Sustainable Development ......................................................................................... 60
Further Information ..................................................................................................... 62
2 SAFEGUARDS ................................................................................................. 63
No Net Harm ...................................................................................................................... 63
Local Stakeholder Consultation ....................................................................................... 64
Overview of Pre-Project Consultations and Socio-Economic Study ...................... 64
Pre Project-Consultations in the Communities ......................................................... 68

Page 2 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Summary of Outcomes .............................................................................................. 77

Inclusion of Stakeholders Concerns .......................................................................... 78
Ongoing Communications with Communities......................................................... 78
Communicating Relevant Laws and Regulations Covering Workers’ Rights ........ 79
Communications Regarding Validation & Verification .......................................... 80
Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................... 81
Public Comments .............................................................................................................. 81
AFOLU-Specific Safeguards .............................................................................................. 81
The socialisation of the Project and the VCS PD ..................................................... 82
Identification of Local Stakeholders ......................................................................... 82
Risks to Local Stakeholders ........................................................................................ 82
Ongoing Communications and Grievance Redress Mechanism .......................... 83
Grievance Resolution Procedure .............................................................................. 84
Worker Safety Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 85
3 APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 87
Title and Reference of Methodology............................................................................... 87
Applicability of Methodology ........................................................................................... 88
Project Boundary ............................................................................................................... 97
General ....................................................................................................................... 97
REDD and WRC Boundaries ....................................................................................... 98
Spatial Boundary of the Project Area ....................................................................... 98
Definition of REDD and WRC Boundaries ............................................................... 116
Temporal boundary ................................................................................................. 121
Carbon pools ............................................................................................................ 121
Sources of GHG Emissions ........................................................................................ 122
Baseline Scenario............................................................................................................. 123
History of Land Use Change in Riau in the Pre-Baseline and Baseline Period ..... 126
Additionality ..................................................................................................................... 132
Scope ........................................................................................................................ 132
Procedure ................................................................................................................. 132
Justification of the Baseline Scenario and Additionality ....................................... 134
Methodology Deviations ................................................................................................. 158
First Methodology Deviation/alteration ................................................................. 158
Second Methodology Deviation/alteration .......................................................... 159
4 QUANTIFICATION OF GHG EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND REMOVALS ...... 163
Baseline Emissions ............................................................................................................ 163
Proxy Areas ............................................................................................................... 164
General Procedures and Assumptions ................................................................... 178
Description of Project Activities............................................................................... 179
Baseline Emissions from REDD (BL-PL) ...................................................................... 181
Baseline Emissions from WRC (BL-PEAT) .................................................................. 191
Baseline Emissions – RWE .......................................................................................... 195
Baseline Emissions - RWE+REDD ............................................................................... 198
Baseline Emissions – CIW .......................................................................................... 203
Baseline Emissions - CIW+REDD ............................................................................... 206
Total Baseline Emissions – All Activities .................................................................... 212
Significant Sources of Baseline Emissions ................................................................ 218
Project Emissions .............................................................................................................. 219
General Procedures and Assumptions ................................................................... 219
Project Emissions Modelling Approach .................................................................. 223
Emissions calculations for REDD .............................................................................. 224
Emissions calculations for RWE and CIW ................................................................ 227
Future approaches for calculating project emissions ........................................... 233
Project Emissions – RWE ............................................................................................ 234
Project Emissions - RWE+REDD ................................................................................. 236
Project Emissions – CIW ............................................................................................ 239
Project Emissions - CIW+REDD ................................................................................. 240

Page 3 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Project Emissions – All Activities ............................................................................... 241

Leakage ........................................................................................................................... 245
Applicability of Leakage Modules .......................................................................... 245
Where the Specific Deforestation Agent has been Identified ............................. 246
Peatlands and Tidal Wetlands ................................................................................ 252
Estimation of Emissions from Ecological Leakage (LK-ECO) ................................. 256
Net GHG Emission Reductions and Removals............................................................... 258
General ..................................................................................................................... 258
Total Net GHG Emission Reductions for REDD Project Activity ............................. 258
Total Net GHG Emission Reductions for ARR Project Activity................................ 260
Total Net GHG Emission Reductions for WRC Project Activity .............................. 260
Summary of GHG Emission Reductions and Removals ......................................... 265
Uncertainty Analysis ................................................................................................. 269
Calculation of AFOLU Pooled Buffer Account Contribution ................................ 271
Calculation of Verified Carbon Units ...................................................................... 274
5 MONITORING .............................................................................................. 277
Data and Parameters Available at Validation ............................................................. 277
Data and Parameters Monitored ................................................................................... 290
Monitoring Plan ................................................................................................................ 300
Monitoring Methods ................................................................................................. 300
Policies for oversight and accountability of monitoring activities ....................... 301
Sampling Approach ................................................................................................. 306
Procedures for handling non-conformances with the validated monitoring plan.
308
Data Management Methods and Structure .......................................................... 309
Organizational structure, responsibilities, and competencies of the personnel 309
6 APPENDICES ................................................................................................ 314
Appendix 1. Proof of Legal Ownership ................................................................................. 314
Appendix 2. Recorded Flora and Fauna .............................................................................. 360
Appendix 3. Community Reports .......................................................................................... 382
Appendix 3b. Report on Socialisation of the Ecosystem Restoration Management Area
(Sosialisasi Pengelolaan Kawasan Restorasi Ekosistem Riau RER) ....................................... 382
Appendix 3c. RER Ethnographic Assessment, Kap. Pelalawan, Province of Riau (KAJIAN
SOSIAL BUDAYA DAN KELEMBAGAAN DI SEKITAR WILAYAH RESTORASI EKOSISTEM
SEMENANJUNG KAMPAR PT. RAPP KABUPATEN PELALAWAN PROVINSI RIAU) ................... 382
Appendix 3d. Report on Mapping Potential and Conflict Resolution in the Riau Ecosystem
Restoration Area (Laporan Pemetaan Potensi Dan Resolusi Konflik Di Kawasan Restorasi
Ekosistem Riau) ........................................................................................................................ 382
Appendix 4. RER Certifications............................................................................................... 383
Appendix 4a. ISO Certification 9001 ..................................................................................... 383
Appendix 4b. ISO Certification 14001 ................................................................................... 384
Appendix 4c. ISO Certifications: OHSAS 18001 .................................................................... 385
Appendix 4d. ISO Certification 45001 ................................................................................... 386
Appendix 4e. PEFC Certification ........................................................................................... 391
Appendix 4f. Singapore Green Label Certification ............................................................. 393
Appendix 5. Methods for Aboveground Biomass Inventory / Permanent Sample Plot
Establishment ........................................................................................................................... 394
Appendix 6. Methods for Peatland Identification and Peat Thickness .............................. 394
Appendix 7. Carbon Assessment Report (2017) ................................................................... 394
Appendix 8. Aboveground Biomass Inventories of the Project Area ................................. 394
Appendix 9. Peat Inventories of the Project Area ............................................................... 394
Appendix 10. Default Values Used in Quantification of GHG Emissions ............................ 394
Appendix 11. Climate Modelling of the Project Area ......................................................... 394
Appendix 12. Peat Bulk Density Measurement and Statistical Analysis ............................. 395
Appendix 13. Subsidence Calculation Method/Model ...................................................... 395
Appendix 14. Hydrological Modelling ................................................................................... 395
Appendix 15. - Withdrawn ...................................................................................................... 395

Page 4 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Appendix 16. Baseline Stratification based on Landcover ................................................. 395

Appendix 17. Baseline Stratification based on Plantation Development and Drainage . 395
Appendix 18. Landcover Classification Analysis of the Project Area ................................. 395
Appendix 19. Proxy Analysis of Reference Regions for Baseline Rate of Deforestation ... 396
Appendix 20. LiDAR-derived DTM Modelling ........................................................................ 396
Appendix 21. Uncertainty Calculations ................................................................................ 396
Appendix 22 Activity Shifting Leakage Calculations and Quantifications ........................ 396
Appendix 23. List of Project SOP ............................................................................................ 396
Appendix 24 RER-CP MRV Plan (Detailed) ........................................................................... 399
Appendix 25 Data and Parameters Available at Validation .............................................. 399
Appendix 26. Data and Parameters Available at Monitoring ............................................ 399
Appendix 27. VCS Non-Permanence Risk Report Tool ........................................................ 399
Appendix 28. VCS Non-Permanence Risk Report ................................................................ 399
Appendix 29. Baseline RKU with Year 1-7 .............................................................................. 399
Appendix 30. RER Organization Chart 2021 ......................................................................... 399
7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 400

Page 5 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1- Landscape of project area (Copyright: C. Delacy ©) ........................................ 17
Figure 2 - Dam construction in RER ....................................................................................... 30
Figure 3 - Reforestation Flow ................................................................................................. 32
Figure 4 - Seedling gathering ................................................................................................ 33
Figure 5 - Phantom 4 Pro Drone ............................................................................................ 34
Figure 6 – High-definition drone photos of highly degraded site. ..................................... 34
Figure 7 - Replanting native seedlings in RER ...................................................................... 35
Figure 8 - GHG Flux tower in the Kampar ............................................................................. 35
Figure 9 - RER Fire teams during a regular training session ................................................. 36
Figure 10 - Identified Plant & Animal Species in RER ........................................................... 37
Figure 11- RER Project Area 2017-2019 Average Monthly Temperature (degrees Celsius)
.................................................................................................................................................. 44
Figure 12- RER Project Area 2002-2019 Average Monthly Rainfall (mm)........................... 45
Figure 13- Degraded forest of the Kampar Peninsula ........................................................ 49
Figure 14- IUCN statuses ......................................................................................................... 49
Figure 15- Photos of threatened mammals in The Project. a) Sumatran Tiger, b)
Malayan Sun Bear, c) Sunda Pangolin, d) Sunda Clouded Leopard, e) Flat-Headed Cat
.................................................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 16- Photos of threatened bird in The Project. a) Rhinoceros Hornbill, b) White-
winged Duck, c) Storm's Stork ............................................................................................... 51
Figure 17- APRIL Group's operation management systems certifications ........................ 83
Figure 18- SFM and Chain of Custody Certifications .......................................................... 84
Figure 19- The Grievance Resolution Procedure ................................................................. 85
Figure 20- Above-ground stratification process .................................................................. 99
Figure 21- Peat Depth (m) Against Elevation (m) Graph ................................................. 107
Figure 22- a.) Kuda kuda rails from logging activity, circa 2007 b.) Metal rails in
TBOTcirca 2007, and c.) Close-up of the 2007 TBOT sign. ................................................. 113
Figure 23- Path of Analysis chosen by the Project ............................................................ 133
Figure 24 - Flowchart of how Project Established the Baseline ........................................ 164
Figure 25- The process flow used to prepare satellite imagery for proxy area analysis 167
Figure 26- Number of HTI 1995-2020 .................................................................................... 247
Figure 27- Results of the regression analysis to test the significance of the historical trend
in the cumulative area licensed for conversion to HTI plantations between 2005 and
2015. ....................................................................................................................................... 248

Page 6 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1- Project proponent information. ASIA PACIFIC RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL LTD
(APRIL)...................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 2- Project proponent information. APRIL - RIAU ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION ........... 20
Table 3- Project proponent information. PT. GEMILANG CIPTA NUSANTARA ................... 21
Table 4- Project proponent information. PT. THE BEST ONE UNITIMBER .............................. 21
Table 5- Project proponent information. PT. GLOBAL ALAM NUSANTARA ........................ 21
Table 6- Project proponent information. PT. SINAR MUTIARA NUSANTARA ....................... 21
Table 7- Entities involved in the Project. - Himpanzee Pte Ltd ........................................... 22
Table 8- Entities involved in the Project. - Ata Marie Group Ltd ........................................ 22
Table 9- Withdrawn ................................................................................................................ 22
Table 10- Entities involved in the Project - BIDARA .............................................................. 22
Table 11- Proof of Ownership for PT. Gemilang Cipta Nusantara (PT. GCN) ................... 24
Table 12- Proof of Ownership for PT. The Best One Unitimber (PT. TBOT) ........................... 24
Table 13- Proof of Ownership for PT. Sinar Mutiara Nusantara (PT. SMN) .......................... 24
Table 14- Proof of Ownership for PT. Global Alam Nusantara (PT. GAN) .......................... 25
Table 15- Project Scale .......................................................................................................... 27
Table 16- Estimated annual GHG emission reductions or removals .................................. 27
Table 17- List of threatened plants in the Project ................................................................ 50
Table 18- List of threatened mammals in The Project ......................................................... 51
Table 19- List of threatened birds in The Project .................................................................. 52
Table 20- International Treaties ............................................................................................. 53
Table 21- Laws Regulations & Decrees of the Republic of Indonesia ............................... 54
Table 22- Ministerial Regulations and Decrees .................................................................... 55
Table 23- Decrees Related to Ecosystem Restoration Concessions and Management of
Carbon Sequestration Activities ........................................................................................... 55
Table 24- Decrees related to peatland management ...................................................... 56
Table 25- Overview of socialisation efforts ........................................................................... 67
Table 26- Social and institutional culture study ................................................................... 68
Table 27- Teluk Meranti Village FGDs.................................................................................... 70
Table 28- Teluk Binjai Village FGDs ........................................................................................ 71
Table 29- Kuala Panduk Village FGDs .................................................................................. 72
Table 30- Petodak Village FGDs ............................................................................................ 73
Table 31- Serapung Village FGDs.......................................................................................... 75
Table 32- Conditional Acceptance Terms ........................................................................... 77
Table 33- Relevant las & regulations covering workers' rights ............................................ 79
Table 34- Title and Reference of Methodology................................................................... 87
Table 35- Summary of applicability conditions ................................................................... 96
Table 36- Satellite imagery used for stratification ............................................................... 99
Table 37- Land cover of the project area based on the Landsat and PALSAR analyses
................................................................................................................................................ 100
Table 38- Final AGB stratification summary of the project area ...................................... 101
Table 39- ANOVA test for stratification model ................................................................... 101
Table 40- Scheffé Analysis ................................................................................................... 101
Table 41- Scheffé Comparison Values and Significant Differences ................................ 102
Table 42- AGB carbon stock in the Project Area at the project start ............................. 103
Table 43- Peat Depth Values from Initial Survey (all values in meters) ............................ 105
Table 44- ANOVA test for regressions model (stratification) ............................................ 107
Table 45- Coefficient estimate of ANOVA test .................................................................. 107
Table 46- Peat thickness stratification of the project area............................................... 108
Table 47- Summary of the PDT stratification of the project area ..................................... 110
Table 48 - Summary of PDT Stratification of the Project Area .......................................... 110
Table 49- Peat carbon stock in the project area at the project start ............................. 111

Page 7 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Table 50- Final drained area stratification summary of the project area ....................... 114
Table 51- REDD and Non-REDD Areas within Plantation Development Area ................ 117
Table 52- Drainage status of lands at project commencement ..................................... 118
Table 53- Total areas of RWE & CIW activities ................................................................... 118
Table 54- REDD / WRC activity boundaries ........................................................................ 119
Table 55- Classification of WRC categories of project area ............................................ 119
Table 56- Summary of carbon pools................................................................................... 121
Table 57- GHG sources included in the REDD project boundary .................................... 123
Table 58- Differences in peat carbon stocks ..................................................................... 126
Table 59- Summary of the area eligible for crediting from WRC activities ..................... 126
Table 60- List of HTI companies in Riau Province as of 2019. ............................................ 128
Table 61- Baseline Scenario Land use change by block within the project area ......... 130
Table 62- Land-use change within the project area under baseline.............................. 131
Table 63- Preliminary screening based on the starting date of the A/R project activity
................................................................................................................................................ 134
Table 64- Credibility of the proposed land-use scenario of industrial Acacia plantation
................................................................................................................................................ 137
Table 65- Credibility of the proposed land-use scenario of commercial selective
logging .................................................................................................................................. 139
Table 66- Credibility of the proposed land-use scenario of industrial oil palm plantation
................................................................................................................................................ 141
Table 67- Credibility of the proposed land-use scenario of smallholder oil palm
plantations ............................................................................................................................ 142
Table 68- Credibility of the proposed land-use scenario of protected forests without
carbon crediting .................................................................................................................. 144
Table 69- Credibility of the proposed land-use scenario of mining and fossil fuel
extraction .............................................................................................................................. 146
Table 70- Outcome of Sub-Step 1a .................................................................................... 148
Table 71- Six alternative scenarios with respect to mandatory applicable laws and
regulations............................................................................................................................. 149
Table 72- List of remaining realistic and credible baseline scenarios ............................. 150
Table 73- Analysis reviews of identified barriers ................................................................. 155
Table 74 Carbon pools excluded in the baseline and Project ........................................ 160
Table 75 – REDD GHG sources in the Baseline that are excluded .................................. 161
Table 76- REDD GHG sources in the Project that are excluded ...................................... 161
Table 77 - WRC GHG sources in the Baseline that are excluded .................................... 161
Table 78 - WRC GHG sources in the Project that are excluded ...................................... 162
Table 79- Summary of suitable reference regions ............................................................. 164
Table 80- Summary of RER Project concession areas ....................................................... 164
Table 81- Satellite Imagery Details for PT. RAPP (Tasik Belat) ........................................... 169
Table 82- Satellite Imagery Details for PT. Peranap Timber (Serapung) .......................... 171
Table 83- Satellite Imagery Details for for PT. Essa Indah Timber (Serapung .................. 173
Table 84- Satellite Imagery Details for PT. Madukoro Lestari (Tasik) ................................ 175
Table 85- Satellite Imagery Details for PT. Harapan Jaya (Tasik) ..................................... 177
Table 86- Satellite Imagery Details PT. RAPP (Meranti East and West) ............................ 178
Table 87- Variables used in the schematization of quantification of GHG emissions from
microbial decompositions of peatland dissolved organic carbon from water bodies in
peatlands in the baseline scenario. ................................................................................... 181
Table 88- Reference region selection criteria ................................................................... 183
Table 89- Summary of suitable reference regions ............................................................. 184
Table 90- Baseline Plantation Development Program ...................................................... 186
Table 91- Land-Use Change of all Stratum ........................................................................ 190
Table 92- Average AGB of all Stratum................................................................................ 190
Table 93- Root to shoot ratio of different forest types ...................................................... 191

Page 8 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Table 94- Average BGB of all Stratum ................................................................................ 191

Table 95- The dimensions and density of new canals created during the baseline
development ........................................................................................................................ 191
Table 96- Baseline area table ............................................................................................. 192
Table 97- Baseline Plantation canals and Drains area table ........................................... 192
Table 98- Emission factors from drained peat soil ............................................................. 194
Table 99- Emission factors from surface area of canals ................................................... 195
Table 100- Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains in the baseline ............. 196
Table 101- Canal surface area statistics ............................................................................ 196
Table 102- Baseline GHG emissions from peat soils ........................................................... 197
Table 103- Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in
peatlands .............................................................................................................................. 197
Table 104- Areas converted to plantations by land cover and year in the baseline ... 198
Table 105- Areas converted to plantations by concession, land cover and year in
RWE+REDD scenarios ........................................................................................................... 199
Table 106- Above ground tree carbon stock in the baseline .......................................... 199
Table 107- Below ground tree carbon stock in the baseline ........................................... 199
Table 108- Below ground tree carbon stock depletion .................................................... 200
Table 109- Drained area estimates of legacy & plantation canals ................................ 201
Table 110- Canal surface area statistics ............................................................................ 202
Table 111- Baseline GHG emissions from peat soils ........................................................... 202
Table 112- Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in
peatlands .............................................................................................................................. 203
Table 113- Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains ....................................... 204
Table 114- Canal surface area statistics ............................................................................ 204
Table 115- Baseline GHG emissions from peat soils ........................................................... 205
Table 116- GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands ... 205
Table 117- Areas converted to plantations by land cover and year in the baseline ... 206
Table 118- Areas converted to plantations by concession, land cover and year ........ 207
Table 119- Changes in above ground tree carbon stock in the baseline ...................... 207
Table 120- Changes in below ground tree carbon stock in the baseline ...................... 208
Table 121- Below ground tree carbon stock depletion .................................................... 209
Table 122- Drained area estimates of legacy & plantation canals ................................ 210
Table 123- Canal surface area statistics ............................................................................ 211
Table 124- Baseline GHG emissions from peat soils ........................................................... 211
Table 125- Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in
peatlands .............................................................................................................................. 212
Table 126- Areas converted to plantations by land cover and year in baseline .......... 213
Table 127- Areas converted to plantations by concession, land cover and year in
baseline ................................................................................................................................. 214
Table 128- Changes in Above ground tree carbon stock in the baseline ..................... 214
Table 129- Changes in Below ground tree carbon stock in the baseline ....................... 214
Table 130- Below ground tree carbon stock in the baseline ........................................... 215
Table 131- Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains in the baseline ............. 216
Table 132- Canal surface area statistics ............................................................................ 217
Table 133- Baseline GHG emissions from peat soils ........................................................... 217
Table 134- Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in
peatlands .............................................................................................................................. 218
Table 135- Activity class of each stratum ........................................................................... 222
Table 136- Variables adopted for the systematic organisation of measurements for
GHG emissions arising from microbial peat decomposition and dissolving organic
carbon from peatlands under the Project Scenario. ....................................................... 223
Table 137- Eligible area for deforestation for CIW+REDD activities ................................. 226

Page 9 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Table 138- Stratification employed for calculation of GHG emissions, the area (ha), and
the CO2 and CH4 default factors used in each stratum for the specific land use ........ 231
Table 139- Emission factors of surface area of canals ...................................................... 231
Table 140- GHG emissions from microbial decompositions of peat in the project
scenario in t.CO2-e y-1. ......................................................................................................... 233
Table 141- Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains in the baseline ............. 234
Table 142- Drained area estimates of legacy canals ....................................................... 235
Table 143- Canal surface area statistics ............................................................................ 235
Table 144- Project GHG emissions from Peat Soils ............................................................. 235
Table 145- Project GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in
peatlands .............................................................................................................................. 236
Table 146- Eligible area for deforestation in the baseline ................................................ 236
Table 147- Ex-ante net carbon stock changes as a result of forest carbon stock
enhancement in the Project Area...................................................................................... 237
Table 148- Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains ....................................... 237
Table 149- Drained area estimates of legacy canals ....................................................... 238
Table 150- Canal surface area statistics ............................................................................ 238
Table 151- Project GHG emissions from peat soils ............................................................. 239
Table 152- Project GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in
peatlands .............................................................................................................................. 239
Table 153- Eligible area for deforestation for CIW+REDD activities ................................. 240
Table 154- Ex-ante net carbon stock changes as a result of forest carbon stock
enhancement in the Project Area...................................................................................... 241
Table 155- Eligible area for deforestation for REDD activities .......................................... 241
Table 156- Ex-ante net carbon stock changes as a result of forest carbon stock
enhancement in the Project Area...................................................................................... 242
Table 157- Area drained by legacy canals ....................................................................... 243
Table 158- Canal surface area statistics ............................................................................ 243
Table 159- Project GHG emissions from peat soils ............................................................. 244
Table 160- Project GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in
peatlands .............................................................................................................................. 244
Table 161- Applicability of leakage modules .................................................................... 246
Table 162- Official data on historic HTI concession licenses granted ............................. 247
Table 163- Historical Trends Regression statistics ............................................................... 248
Table 164- Historical Trends Regression ANOVA ................................................................ 248
Table 165- Historical Trends Regression Parameter Estimates .......................................... 248
Table 166- Deforestation Estimates ..................................................................................... 250
Table 167- New area of annual deforestation by the baseline class of deforestation
agents in which no leakage occurs. .................................................................................. 251
Table 168- Deforested and forested area in HTI and unlicensed HP areas right before
the project start. ................................................................................................................... 253
Table 169- Summary of Peat Thickness and average carbon loss tPDT in all HTI and
Unlicensed HP Concessions ................................................................................................. 254
Table 170- Projection of undrained peatland in HP areas as alternative areas for
leakage to peatland. .......................................................................................................... 255
Table 171- Estimated emission factors of leakage to peatland. ..................................... 255
Table 172- The proportion of undrained peatland areas in the alternative area. ........ 255
Table 173 – Total net GHG Emission Reductions from REDD Activity ............................... 260
Table 174 - Net GHG Emissions from WRC Activity ............................................................ 264
Table 175- GHG Emission Reductions and Removals by Emissions Class ........................ 266
Table 176- Estimated net GHG emissions reductions (tCO2e) ......................................... 268
Table 177 - Uncertainty Parameters and Modules ............................................................ 270
Table 178- AGB Uncertainty Estimates ............................................................................... 270
Table 179 - Non-Permanence Risk Buffer Withholding ...................................................... 273

Page 10 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Table 180- Net emissions adjustment factors at project start and end years ................ 274
Table 181 - Annual VCUs, NERs and Buffer Credits with Totals ......................................... 276

LIST OF MAPS
Map 1- Operation Plan of the Project .................................................................................. 29
Map 2 - Map of the RER legacy canals from former HPH logging activity and current
dams ........................................................................................................................................ 30
Map 3: Installation of monitoring equipment: level loggers, dipwells and subsidence
poles) ....................................................................................................................................... 32
Map 4 - 875 ha of Heavily Degraded areas to be reforested and revegetated ............ 33
Map 5 - RER Carbon Project located in Indonesia ............................................................. 40
Map 6- Project Area Location in Riau Province .................................................................. 41
Map 7- Project Area Location ............................................................................................... 42
Map 8- Kabupaten Pelalawan and the Project location .................................................. 43
Map 9- Weather stations on the Kampar Peninsula ........................................................... 44
Map 10 - Peat Soils of the Kampar Peninsula ...................................................................... 46
Map 11- Geology Map of Kampar Peninsula ...................................................................... 46
Map 12: Landcover of Project .............................................................................................. 47
Map 13- Community activity near the Project Area........................................................... 65
Map 14- Map of villages in RER Kampar Peninsula ............................................................. 68
Map 15- Boundary map of the Project area with the boundaries of the four concessions
.................................................................................................................................................. 98
Map 16- Stratification of the project area based on the Landsat analyses .................. 100
Map 17- LiDAR data collection on the Kampar Peninsula ............................................... 104
Map 18- Digital elevation model of the project area ...................................................... 105
Map 19- Map of peatland soil surveys ............................................................................... 106
Map 20- Final peat stratification of the project area ....................................................... 108
Map 21- Peat thickness stratification of the project area (estimated at 50cm resolution)
................................................................................................................................................ 109
Map 22- Canals and kuda kuda Rail Systems: Canals are coloured; extensive rail
system circled in red in PT. TBOT; blue circle shows rail systems radiating from canals in
PT. SMN .................................................................................................................................. 112
Map 23- Maps of canal buffer boundaries, location of legacy canals and planned
damming operations by year ............................................................................................. 114
Map 24 – Boundary map of drained areas at project commencement ....................... 115
Map 25 - Baseline Reference Area ..................................................................................... 116
Map 26- Boundary map of the REDD project activity within the Project boundaries ... 117
Map 27- Boundary map of all 4 WRC combined categories and project activities ..... 120
Map 28- Riau Province Spatial Planning Map (2010) showing Hutan Produksi or
Production Forest area in yellow ........................................................................................ 135
Map 29- Current (2019) Spatial Planning Map of Pelalawan District showing Hutan
Produksi or Production Forest Area in Purple ..................................................................... 136
Map 30- Map of active HPH Concessions in Riau Province (2015) ................................. 138
Map 31- Nature Reserves and Conservation Areas in the Province of Riau .................. 144
Map 32- Fossil Fuel (oil & gas) production west of the Kampar ....................................... 147
Map 33- Geographic location of the 6 proxy reference regions for the baseline
deforestation rate calculation ............................................................................................ 167
Map 34 Land cover maps (top) and satellite data (bottom) for PT. RAPP (Tasik Belat)168
Map 35- Land cover maps (top) and satellite data (bottom) for PT. Peranap Timber
(Serapung) ............................................................................................................................ 169

Page 11 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 36- Land cover maps (top) and satellite data (bottom) for PT. Essa Indah Timber
(Serapung) ............................................................................................................................ 172
Map 37- Land cover maps (top) and satellite data (bottom) for PT. Madukoro Lestari
(Tasik) ..................................................................................................................................... 174
Map 38- Land cover maps (top) and satellite data (bottom) for PT. Harapan Jaya
(Tasik) ..................................................................................................................................... 176
Map 39- Satellite and land cover maps for PT. RAPP (Meranti East and West) ............. 177
Map 40- The Four Project Activities ..................................................................................... 180
Map 41 -Plantation Development Program RER to HTI Operation Plan Map ................ 183
Map 42- Master project scenario map .............................................................................. 221
Map 43- Established Permanent Sample Plots (PSP) in red and AGB inventory plots. .. 302
Map 44- The Existing and Proposed New Monitoring transects or Clusters .................... 304

Page 12 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

LIST OF ACRONYMS
Acronym Explanation
A/R Afforestation/ Reforestation
Af Köppen’s Climate Classification for Tropical Rainforest Climate
AFOLU Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use
AGB Above Ground Biomass
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
APD Avoiding Planned Deforestation
APL Areal Penggunaan Lain or Other Land Utilisation
APRIL Asia Pacific Resources International Limited
APWD Avoiding Planned Wetlands Degradation
ARR Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
AUDD Avoiding Unplanned Deforestation and/or Degradation
BAU Business As Usual
BGB Below Ground Biomass
VMD0041 Estimation of baseline carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas
BL-ARR
emissions in ARR project activities (BL-ARR), v1.1
VMD0008 Estimation of baseline emissions from forest degradation caused by
BL-DFW
extraction of wood for fuel (BL-DFW), v1.0
VMD0042 Estimation of baseline soil carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas
BL-PEAT
emissions in peatland rewetting and conservation project activities (BL-PEAT), v1.1
VMD0006 Estimation of baseline carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas
BL-PL emissions from planned deforestation/forest degradation and planned wetland
degradation (BL-PL), v1.3
VMD0007 Estimation of baseline carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas
BL-UP emissions from unplanned deforestation and unplanned wetland degradation (BL-
UP), v3.3
bopd Barrels of Oil Per Day
BSL Baseline
BSP Bumi Siak Pusako
C Carbon
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CCB Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards
Cd Carbon Density
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
cfm Cubic feet per minute
CH4 Methane
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
CIW Conservation of Intact Wetlands
CL95 95% Confidence Interval
cm Centimetre
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e or CO2-e Carbon dioxide equivalent
COP Conference of the Parties
COP 13 Conference of the Parties - Bali Action Plan
COP 21 Conference of the Parties - Paris Agreement
COP 3 Conference of the Parties - Kyoto Protocol
VMD0001 Estimation of carbon stocks in the above- and belowground biomass in
CP-AB
live tree and non-tree pools (CP-AB), v1.1
CPO Crude Palm Oil
CPP Coastal Plains-Pekanbaru or Coastal Plains and Pekanbaru
VMD0005 Estimation of carbon stocks in the long-term wood products pool (CP-W),
CP-W
v1.1
CR IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Status - Critically Endangered

Page 13 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

CUPP Conservation of Undrained and Partially Drained Peatland

dbh Diameter at Breast Height
DD IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Status - Data Deficient
DEL Drainability Elevation Limit
DEM Digital Elevation Map
df Degrees of Freedom
dipwells Peat Water Table Monitoring Points
DJI Dà-Jiāng Innovations
DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon
EB Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
VMD0013 Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass and peat burning
E-BPB
(E–BPB), v1.2
E-FFC VMD0014 Estimation of emissions from fossil fuel combustion (E-FFC), v1.0
EN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Status - Endangered
ER Ecosystem Restoration License
ER Emission Reductions
ETM+ Landsat 5 Enhanced TM Plus
EUR Euro
EVI Enhanced Vegetation Index
F F Ratio
FGDs Focus Group Discussions
FPIC Free, Prior and Informed Consent
FSC Forest Stewardship Council
GAN PT. Global Alam Nusantara
GCN PT. Gemilang Cipta Nusantara
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GOFC-GOLD Global Observations of Forest Cover and Land-use Dynamics
H 2O Water Vapour
ha Hectares
HCS High Carbon Stock
HCV High Conservation Value
HPH Hak Pengusahaan Hutan or Selective Logging
HPK Hutan Produksi Konversi or Conversion Production Forests
HR Human Resource
HTI Hutan Tanaman Industri or Industrial Plantation Forestry
IFCA Indonesian Forest Climate Alliance
IFFC Indonesian Forestry Certification Cooperation
ISO International Organization for Standardization
IUCN International Union of Conservation of Nature
IUPHHK-RE Izin Usaha Pemanfaatan Hasil Hutan Kayu - Restoration Ecosystem
km Kilometre
km2 Kilometre Square
KPHP Local Forest Management Unit
Landsat Land Remote-Sensing Satellite
LC IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Status - Least Concern
L-Di Likelihood of Deforestation
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging
VMD0043 Estimation of emissions from displacement of pre-project agricultural
LK-ARR
activities (LK-ARR), v1.0
VMD0009 Estimation of emissions from activity shifting for avoided planned
LK-ASP deforestation/forest degradation and avoided planned wetland degradation (LK-
ASP), v1.3
VMD0012 Estimation of emissions from displacement of fuelwood extraction (LK-
LK-DFW
DFW), v1.0
LK-ECO VMD0044 Estimation of emissions from ecological leakage (LK-ECO), v1.1
LPF Low Pole Forest
LPHD Lembaga Pengelolaan Hutan Desa (LPHD the Village Forest Management Agency)

Page 14 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

LUC Land Use Change

LULUCF Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry
m Metre
m3 Cubic Metre
VMD0045 Methods for monitoring greenhouse gas emissions and removals in ARR
M-ARR
project activities (M-ARR), v1.1
mm Millimetre
VMD0015 Methods for monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions and removals (M-
M-REDD
REDD), v2.2
MODIS Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
MoEF Ministry of Environment & Forestry
MoF Ministry of Forestry
MONEV Laporan Kegiatan Monitoring Dan Evaluasi
VMD0046 Methods for monitoring of soil carbon stock changes and greenhouse
M-PEAT gas emissions and removals in peatland rewetting and conservation project
activities (M-PEAT), v1.1
MPSF Mixed Peat Swamp Forest
MRV Monitoring Reporting and Verification
MS Mean Squares
N 2O Nitrous Oxide
NDCs Nationally Determined Contributions
NE IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Status - Not Evaluated
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NP National Park
NT IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Status - Near Threatened
NTFP Non-Timber Forest Products
OHSAS Occupational Health and Safety Management System
OLI Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager
PA Project Area
PALSAR Phased Array Type L‐Band Synthetic Aperture Radar
PCC Precast Cement Concrete
PD Project Description
PDT Peat Depletion Timeline
PEFC Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification
PF Pole Forest
Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy
PSP Permanent Sample Plot
PT Perseroan Terbatas
P-value Calculated Probability
Q&A Questions & Answers
QA Quality Assurance
QC Quality Control
R2 Coefficient of Determination
RAPP PT. Riau Andalan Pulp & Paper
REDD +MF VM0007 REDD+ Methodology Framework (REDD+MF), v1.6
RDP Rewetting Drained Peatland
REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation and Foster Conservation,
REDD+
Sustainable Management of Forests, and Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks
REDD-MF REDD+ Methodology Framework
REKI Hutan Harapan Initiative
RePPProT Regional Physical Planning Programme for Transmigration
RER Riau Ecosystem Restoration
RER-CP Riau Ecosystem Restoration Carbon Project
RKT Rencana Kerja Tahunan or Annual Work Permit

Page 15 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

RKU Rencana Kerja Usaha or long-term work plan

RWE Restoring Wetland Ecosystems
SD Sekolah Dasar or Elementary School
SDG Ssutainable Development Goals
SE Asia Southeast Asia
SFM Sustainable Forest Management
SINTAS Save The Indonesian Nature and Threatened Species
SMA Sekolah Menengah Atas or High School
SMN PT. Sinar Mutiara Nusantra
SMP Sekolah Menengah Pertama or Middle School
SNI Indonesian National Standard
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SRTM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
SS Sum of Squares
t Tonne or Metric Ton
T-ADD CDM Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality
T-BAR VCS AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool
TBOT PT. The Best One Unitimber
tCO2e Tonnes of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
TM Landsat Thematic Mapper
T-SIG CDM Tool for testing significance of GHG emissions in A/R CDM project activities
UNCAC United Nations Convention Against Corruption
UNFCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UN-REDD
United Nations Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation Readiness
Readiness
USD United States Dollar
USGS United States Geological Survey
UV Ultraviolet
VCS Voluntary Carbon Standard
VCU Voluntary Carbon Unit
Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality in VCS Agriculture,
VT0001
Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Project Activities
VU IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Status - Vulnerable
WCS Wildlife Conservation Society
WRC Wetland Restoration and Conservation
WWF World Wildlife Foundation
X-STR VMD0016 Methods for stratification of the project area (X-STR), v1.2
X-UNC VMD0017 Estimation of uncertainty for REDD project activities (X-UNC), v2.2

Page 16 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

1 PROJECT DETAILS
1.1 Summary Description of the Project
The Riau Ecosystem Restoration Carbon Project (the "Project", “RER-Project” or "RER-CP") seeks to
protect and restore 130,090 ha of peatland ecosystem located in the Republic of Indonesia while at
the same time preserving biodiversity and enhancing local livelihoods. The Project will secure
78,425 ha of forest from risk of conversion to an industrial forestry plantation. The Project is on the
island of Sumatra and in the Province of Riau. Specifically, it is located on the Kampar Peninsula,
which is a rain-fed domed peatland forest made up of four former logging concessions.

Figure 1- Landscape of project area (Copyright: C. Delacy ©)

The Kampar Peninsula (674,200 ha) was first subjected to commercial timber exploitation in the
1970s through the early 2000s. This phase was followd by a significant part of the peninsula being
designated for industrial plantations, primarily Acacia crassicarpa, and to a much lesser extent, oil
palm plantations. The remaining natural forest block (344,000 ha) on the Kampar Peninsula is the
largest peatland forest block in Sumatra with a peat depth that ranges from 3 – 15 meters thick. As
of 2014, when the RER area was completing its licensing, 294,227 ha or 43.6% of the peninsula
had been converted to Acacia forestry plantations. Today, approximately 344,000 ha of natural
forest remains on the Kampar Peninsula, and the RER-CP is located at the centre of this.

The Project at its heart is tasked with demonstrating how peat landscapes can be responsibly
managed to protect biodiversity and enhance local communities. Forest protection preservation is
augmented by the ring of Acacia plantations that surrounds the Project and which acts as a natural
buffer to the Project Area.

Page 17 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The four original concessions that make up the Project area are PT. Gemilang Cipta Nusantara
(20,123 ha), PT. The Best One Unitimber (40,666 ha), PT. Sinar Mutiara Nusantra (32,776 ha) and
PT. Global Alam Nusantara (36,525 ha). All have long been gazetted as part of the Forest
Production Estate (Hutan Produksi) by the Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry.
Through the acquisition of individual Ecosystem Restoration licenses (IUPHHK-RE) for each, they
have been saved from the risk of conversion to industrial plantations.

With more than 17,000 people living just outside the RER concession areas, it is essential that the
Project provides training and incentivises improved livelihood opportunities. The biodiversity of the
Kampar Peninsula has been recognised by Birdlife International, The International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and World Wildlife Fund
(WWF) as an “Important Bird Area” (2004), a “Key Biodiversity Area” (2006), and a “Tiger
Conservation Area“ (2007). Globally threatened species such as the Sumatran Tiger, Sunda
Pangolin, Storm’s Stork, Flat-head Cat, and Malaysian Sun Bear are known to exist in the Project
Area.

The carbon financing received from the Project's activities will be reinvested into the landscape and
local communities to support environmental restoration, fire monitoring, scientific peatland and
wetlands research, and preservation and conservation efforts to maintain and increase the
incredible flora and fauna of the Project Area. There are no ongoing incidents of significant
deforestation or forest degradation in the project area and unplanned deforestation and unplanned
degradation area excluded from both the baseline and the project scenarios.

Under the hypothetical business-as-usual plantation baseline, the landscape would have been
converted to Acacia plantations.

Through the assistance of carbon financing, the Project, over its initial lifespan of 57 years will avoid
373,116,864 tonnes of CO2e, (i.e. 6,545,910 tonnes of Co 2e per annum) from being emitted. At the
same time, the Project will ensure the delicate domed peat landscape remains intact, is not
converted to industrial plantations and undergoes rehabilitation (both natural and human-assisted).
The landscape will be rehabilitated further by blocking the legacy drainage canals from past
commercial selective so that the landscape is rewetted. The Project will ensure carbon remains
locked in the environment and that the biodiversity conservation of this unique lowland domed peat
swamp forest of Riau can be preserved for generations to come.

1.2 Sectoral Scope and Project Type

Sectoral Scope: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU).

Project Category: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) and
Wetlands Restoration and Conservation (WRC).

Page 18 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Type of Activity: Avoided Planned Deforestation (APD), Restoring Wetland Ecosystems (RWE) and
Conservation of Intact Wetlands (CIW) through Avoiding Planned Wetland Degradation (APWD).

The Project is not a grouped project.

Project Eligibility
The proposed RER-CP is eligible under the scope of the VCS Program due to the following points:

1. The Project conforms to the general and AFOLU specific requirements of § 3.1 and § 3.2 of
the VCS Standard v. 4.0.
2. The Project and Project Area is avoiding planned deforestation and planned wetlands
degradation. As a result, the Project falls under the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
and Degradation and Wetlands Restoration and Conservation category pursuant to § 3.2.1,
§ 3.2.8, § 3.5.1, and Appendix A1.8 & A1.15 of the VCS Standard, version 4.0.
3. The baseline of the Project would have seen 78,425 ha of natural forest converted to
industrial forestry plantation, which would have seen Acacia harvesting every five (5) years.
This baseline conforms to the methodological requirements and § 3.12.1 of the VCS
Standard, version 4.0.
4. The lifetime of the Project is 57 years with the option to renew for a further 43 years as
allowed by § 3.8.3 of the VCS Standard, version 4.0.
5. The period between the start date of the Project and to the validation of the Project is within
the five-year requirement as required in § 3.7.3 VCS Standard, version 4.0.
6. The Project has used a current and valid, approved, and up-to-date methodology to
calculate its greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reductions in a conservative manner as
required by § 3.1.1 & 3.1.2 of the VCS Standard, version 4.0.
7. The project has established 300m legally mandated riparian zones adjacent to primary Peat
Dome Forest in PT. GAN concession and around rivers, streams, and other significant water
bodies within the project area.
8. The Project has demonstrated its additionality requirements as set forth in § 3.13.1(1) of
the VCS Standard, version 4.0.

Page 19 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Project Design
The RER-CP includes the installation of three Project activities on four Production Forest
concessions PT. Gemilang Cipta Nusantara (GCN), PT. The Best One Unitimber (TBOT), PT. Sinar
Mutiara Nusantra (SMN) and PT. Global Alam Nusantara (GAN). The designed Project activities
include:

1. Avoiding the development of 78,425 ha of natural forest into Acacia crassicarpa

plantations; and,
2. Avoiding the planned draining, degradation and subsidence of 78,425 ha of peat swamp
forest through the drainage activity required for a commercial scale Acacia crassicarpa
plantation.
3. Rewetting 9,106 ha of the landscape through the damming and subsequent blocking of
146 km of legacy canals located in the Project Area.

Eligibility Criteria
The Project is not a grouped Project and therefore provides no additional eligibility criteria.

Project Proponent
Organisation name ASIA PACIFIC RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL LTD (APRIL) 1
Contact person Lucita Jasmin
Title Director for Sustainability & External Affairs
Address 30-31 Jalan Teluk Betung
Jakarta, Indonesia 10230
Telephone +62-21-319-30134
Email Lucita_Jasmin@aprilasia.com
Table 1- Project proponent information. ASIA PACIFIC RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL LTD (APRIL)

Organisation name RIAU ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION2

Contact person Bradford M. Sanders
Title Head of Operations
Address Jalan Lintas Timur
PT. RAPP Townsite
Rukan Akasia Blok III No.1
Kota Pangkalan Kerinci, Kec. Pangkalan Kerinci
Kapupatan Pelalawan
Riau 28300
Indonesia
Telephone +65 761 95401 ext 4241
Email Bradford_Sanders@aprilasia.com
Table 2- Project proponent information. APRIL - RIAU ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

Organisation name PT. GEMILANG CIPTA NUSANTARA3

Page 20 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Contact person Dian Novarina

Title Current PT. Director
Address Jalan Lintas Timur
Rukon Akasia, Blok III No. 1
RT 01 / RW 09
Pangkalan Kerinci, Riau 28300
Indonesia
Telephone +62 8128244704
Email Dian_Novarina@aprilasia.com
Table 3- Project proponent information. PT. GEMILANG CIPTA NUSANTARA

Organisation name PT. THE BEST ONE UNITIMBER

Contact person Bambang Prayitno
Title Current PT. Director
Address Jalan Lintas Timur
Rukon Akasia, Blok III No. 1
RT 01 / RW 09
Pangkalan Kerinci, Riau 28300
Indonesia
Telephone +62 8129276006
Email Bambang_Prayitno@aprilasia.com
Table 4- Project proponent information. PT. THE BEST ONE UNITIMBER

Organisation name PT. GLOBAL ALAM NUSANTARA

Contact person Ikhsan
Title Current PT. Director
Address Jalan Lintas Timur
Rukon Akasia, Blok III No. 1
RT 01 / RW 09
Pangkalan Kerinci, Riau 28300
Indonesia
Telephone +62 8117524224
Email Ikhsan@aprilasia.com
Table 5- Project proponent information. PT. GLOBAL ALAM NUSANTARA

Organisation name PT. SINAR MUTIARA NUSANTARA

Contact person Rudi Hartono
Title Current PT. Director
Address Jalan Lintas Timur
Rukon Akasia, Blok III No. 1
RT 01 / RW 09
Pangkalan Kerinci, Riau 28300
Indonesia
Telephone +62 82388597688
Email Rudi_Hartono1@aprilasia.com
Table 6- Project proponent information. PT. SINAR MUTIARA NUSANTARA

Page 21 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Other Entities Involved in the Project

Organisation name Himpanzee Pte Ltd
Role in the project Project Developer
Contact person Ralph J. Strebel
Title Head of Carbon
Address International Plaza #27-15
10 Anson Road
Singapore 079903
Telephone +65 9772 6138
Email ralph@himpanzee.net
Table 7- Entities involved in the Project. - Himpanzee Pte Ltd

Organisation name Ata Marie Group Ltd.

Role in the project Assistant Project Developers
Contact person George Kuru
Title Director
Address Ruko Darmawangsa Square No. 5, 4th Floor,
Jln Darmawangsa 6,
Kebayoran Baru,
Jakarta Selatan 12160
Indonesia
Telephone +62 21 72789411
Email george.kuru@ata-marie.co.id
Table 8- Entities involved in the Project. - Ata Marie Group Ltd

Table 9- Withdrawn

Organisation name BIDARA

Role in the project Community Engagements
Contact person Ahmad Fachrudin
Title Executive Director
Address Jl Pejuangan No 24
Kebun Jeruk
Jakarta Barat, 11530
021-535-5995
Telephone +62 8111630179
Email Ahmad Fachrudin@gmail.com
Table 10- Entities involved in the Project - BIDARA

Ownership

Page 22 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Legal & Ownership Requirements

RER-CP is in compliance with the ownership requirements of the VCS Standards (v. 4.0) as fully set
forth in § 3.6.1(1) "Project ownership [is] arising or granted under statute, regulation or degree by a
competent authority" and § 3.6.1(4) "Project ownership [is] arising by virtue of a statutory, property
or contractual right in the land, vegetation or conservational or management process that
generates GHG emission reductions and/or removals".

The Project has acquired the appropriate approvals from the relevant national, provincial and
regency authorities to develop and implement the project activities in the four concessions that
make up the Project Area.

Government Regulation No. 6/2007 on Forest Arrangement and Formulation of Forest Management
Plan as well as Forest Exploitation (and its amendment No. 3/2008).

All four ecosystem restoration licenses are based on Indonesian Government Regulation No.
6/2007 regarding Forest Arrangement and Formulation of Forest Management Plan as well as
Forest Exploitation and the amendment of the regulation in the Government Regulation No.
3/2008. For a comprehensive list of the laws and regulations upon which the licenses are based,
please see the individual licenses as provided in Appendix 1- Proof of Legal Ownership.

Approval of Ownership Documentation

Tables 11 through 14 below sets forth the list of legal approvals that the Project Owners have
obtained for the ongoing implementation of the Project. A copy of each of the below documents is
available to the auditors on request and a copy of each of the four concession licenses are provided
in the Legal Documents appendix as noted above.

Decree No. Description Approval From Date of

Issuance
SK.395/Menhut-II/2012, Issuance of IUPHHK-RE Ministry of 24 July
License to PT.GCN for an Forestry 2012
area of 20,265 ha
SK. 44/VI-BRPUK/2013 Long-Term Management Ministry of 6 May
Plan (RKU) approved for Forestry 2013
PT.GCN IUPHHK-RE
Kpts/522.2/Pemhut/3099 Approval of First Annual Forestry Office, 16 Sept
Work Permit (RKT) Riau Province 2013

SK.930/Menlhk/Setjen/PLA.2/10/ Approval of the PT. GCN Ministry of 18 Oct

2019 Boundaries for 20,123.33 Environment and 2019
ha Forestry

Page 23 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

KT.4/JASUNG/PKU/HPL.2/8/ Issuance of MONEV Ministry of 28 Aug

2019 Certificate Environment and 2019
Forestry
Table 11- Proof of Ownership for PT. Gemilang Cipta Nusantara (PT. GCN)

Decree No. Description Approval From Date of

Issuance
SK.747/Menhut-II/2014 Issuance of IUPHHK-RE Ministry of 15 Sept
License to PT. TBOT for an Forestry 2014
area of 39.412ha
SK.6776/Meat.HK- Long-Term Management Ministry of 29 Dec
PHPL/JASLNG/HPL.2/12/2016 Plan (RKU) approved for Forestry 2016
PT.GCN IUPHHK-RE
522.3/PPH/5493 Approval of First Annual Forestry Office, 29 Dec
Work Permit (RKT) Riau Province 2017
SK.515/Menlhk/Setjen/PLA.2/8/ Approval of the PT. TBOT Ministry of 08 Feb
2019 Boundaries for 40,666 ha Environment and 2019
Forestry
KT.5/JASLING/PKU/HPL.2/8/2019 Issuance of MONEV Ministry of 28 Aug
Certificate Environment and 2019
Forestry
Table 12- Proof of Ownership for PT. The Best One Unitimber (PT. TBOT)

Decree No. Description Approval From Date of

Issuance
SK.162/Menhut-II/2014 Issuance of IUPHHK-RE Ministry of 18 Feb
License to PT.SMN for an Forestry 2014
area of 32.830ha
SK.5778/Men LHK- Long-Term Management Ministry of 27 October
PHPL/JASLING/HPL.2/10/2016 Plan (RKU) approved for Forestry 2016
PT.GCN IUPHHK-RE
522.2/PPH/5492 Approval of First Annual Forestry Office, 28 Dec
Work Permit (RKT) Riau Province 2017
SK.567/Menlhk/Setjen/PLA.2/8/ Approval of the PT. SMN Ministry of 20 Aug
2019 Boundaries for 32,776 ha Environment 2019
and Forestry
KT.11/JASLING/PKU/HPL.2/8/2019 Issuance of MONEV Ministry of 28 Aug
Certificate Environment 2019
and Forestry
Table 13- Proof of Ownership for PT. Sinar Mutiara Nusantara (PT. SMN)

Decree No. Description Approval From Date of

Issuance

Page 24 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

SK.230/Menhut-II/2014 Issuance of IUPHHK-RE Ministry of 14 Mar

License to PT. GAN for an Forestry 2014
area of 36,850 ha
SK.6774/MemLHK- Long-Term Management Ministry of 29 Dec
PHPL/JASLING/HPL.2/12/2016 Plan (RKU) approved for Forestry 2016
PT.GCN IUPHHK-RE
522.2/PPH/5494 Approval of First Annual Forestry Office, 28 Dec
Work Permit (RKT) Riau Province 2017
SK.836/MENLHK/SETJEN/PLA.2/10 Approval of the PT. GAN Ministry of 17 Oct
/2019 Boundaries for 36,525 ha Environment 2019
and Forestry
KT.6/JASLING/PKU/HPL.2/8/2019 Issuance of MONEV Ministry of 28 Aug
Certificate Environment 2019
and Forestry
Table 14- Proof of Ownership for PT. Global Alam Nusantara (PT. GAN)

Project Start Date

The Project start date is defined by § 3.7 of VCS Standard v.4.0.: “The project start date of an
AFOLU project is the date on which activities that led to the generation of GHG emission reductions
or removals are implemented.”

The Project has denoted 17 June 2016 as the Project Start Date. This date corresponds to when
actual activities that would lead to emission reduction credits began. The Project has two emission
reduction activities, WRC and APD, and the implementation of the WRC activity began first with the
activity that led to the construction of canal blocking dams.

WRC Activity
17 Jun 2016 is the date that the Project received its initial shipment of Geo-Reinfox4 material which
was needed to begin constructing sandbags required in the building of dams in the canal blocking
programme. The material was delivered to a location just outside of the RER Project Area, along
with several loads of aggregate material. The sandbags were filled with sand and aggregate and
then shipped by boat to the dam locations that were constructed in July and August of 2016. Before
this time, the Project did not implement any on-the-ground activity that would lead to the creation of
emission reduction credits. The beginning of the dam construction began at scale with the delivery
of the Geo-Reinfox material. There were, however, three dams that were built in 2015 as “proof of
concept” activities. Three different types of dams were built on a small 800-meter stretch of one
canal: one sandbag dam, one made of the conveyor belt “velt” material, and one made of velt and
boards. The successful demonstration of the dams paved the way for approval of the more
extensive rewetting program integrated into the WRC component of the Project. The Project has a
variety of records to show the purchase and delivery of the sandbag material, and when the work

Page 25 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

began to produce the sandbags used for the dams was initiated i.e. purchase order records,
delivery records, human resource records and work order records. The first 16 dams were installed
in 2016, from 23 July through 10 September.

Project Crediting Period

The Project Crediting Period will be 57 years. The Project Crediting Period starts on 17 June 2016
and ends on 23 July 2072. The beginning of the Project Crediting Period coincides with the Project
Start Date and the delivery of the materials used for the construction of sandbags needed for
installing dams in the legacy canals to rewet the landscape. For project reporting purposes, the
start and end dates for any specific year is 1 January and 31 December respectively except for
project start year (2016) and project end year 2072.

The Project Crediting Period of 57 years coincides with the length of the Ecosystem Restoration
License (IUHHPK-RE) held by GCN, which is valid for 60 years from 24 July 2012 and through 23
July 2072. The GCN license was the first of the four licenses acquired by the Project Owner and
expires the earliest. Thus, to be conservative, the initial crediting period is linked to the GCN
license.

The Project Crediting Period may be renewed for up to 43 years, subject to the renewal of the four
concession licenses via the Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Any extension would
require that the Project continues to have the right to manage the area and originate emission
reductions and removals. It is anticipated that the Project would, if feasible, extend for another 44
years so that it may be active for the full 100 years allowed by § 3.8.3 of the VCS Standard, v.4.0.

Page 26 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Project Scale and Estimated GHG Emission Reductions or

Removals
Project Scale
Project
Large project X
Table 15- Project Scale

Year Estimated GHG emission 2048 6,535,301

reductions or removals
2049 6,535,301
(tCO 2e)
2016 2,304,810 2050 6,535,301
2017 5,155,399 2051 6,535,301
2018 7,014,900 2052 6,535,301
2019 8,718,080 2053 6,535,301
2020 9,626,273 2054 6,535,301
2021 7,029,326 2055 6,535,301
2022 7,159,902 2056 6,535,301
2023 6,938,956 2057 6,535,301
2024 6,976,616 2058 6,535,301
2025 6,976,616 2059 6,535,301
2026 6,891,289 2060 6,535,301
2027 6,814,359 2061 6,535,301
2028 6,725,584 2062 6,535,301
2029 6,631,419 2063 6,535,301
2030 6,547,087 2064 6,535,301
2031 6,541,582 2065 6,535,301
2032 6,535,301 2066 6,535,301
2033 6,535,301 2067 6,535,301
2034 6,535,301 2068 6,535,301
2035 6,535,301 2069 6,535,301
2036 6,535,301 2070 6,535,301
2037 6,535,301 2071 6,535,301
2038 6,535,301 2072* 3,652,607
2039 6,535,301 Total estimated 373,116,864
ERs
2040 6,535,301
Total number of
2041 6,535,301 57*
crediting years
2042 6,535,301 Average annual 6,545,910
2043 6,535,301 ERs
Table 16- Estimated annual GHG emission
2044 6,535,301 reductions or removals
2045 6,535,301
*Crediting in 2072 is only for 6 months and
2046 6,535,301
23 days, see § 1.9 above for explanation.
2047 6,535,301

Page 27 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Description of the Project Activity

Summary Description of REDD+ Activity

By applying the VCS REDD+ framework, the Riau Ecosystem Restoration Carbon Project (“RER-CP”
or the “Project”) will protect and preserve the peat domes of the eastern Kampar Peninsula.
Without the Project, this biodiversity hotspot could otherwise have been developed into a
commercial-scale Acacia plantation. Prior to the Project, forest degradation mostly occurred from
historical unsustainable logging practices. The selective logging that took place in the Project Area
and the Kampar Peninsula, primarily in the early and mid- 2000’s removed most of the
commercially valuable timber in an unsustainable manner. This legacy was exacerbated by the
uncontrolled drainage from a large number of opportunistic legacy canals built by the former
selective logging concessions and possibly also by illegal loggers. Generally, in the Kampar
Peninsula, once the valuable timber had been removed, the selective logging concession became
dormant, however as all selective logging concessions are part of the forestry estate known as
Production Forest (Hutan Produksi), the license could legally, upon application be changed to allow
plantation forestry activity5. All of the concession surrounding the Project Area went through this
process and are today Acacia plantations. Once an area receives its HTI license and has its forest
management plan approved by MoF, the designated production area would be clear felled and
planted with Acacia seedlings. Water table management systems (i.e. canals and drains) will be
established and maintained, and every 5-7 years, the Acacia would be harvested via clear felling
and then replanted. Liberal use of nitrogen fertilizers would be used.

The four ecosystem restoration licenses, now organised into the RER-Carbon Project, will avoid
plantation development and undertake a plan of canal blocking and monitoring that will assist in
the rewetting of the broader landscape. Although not part of the larger carbon project, RER will be
replanting native species in degraded areas of various conditions, as well as undertaking and
managing additional natural regeneration and enrichment planting efforts. No GHG emission
reductions or removal claims will be made for this activity. However, these efforts will help ensure
the long-term environmental sustainability of the Kampar Peninsula. Project Activities will also be
integrated with community support efforts that will impact the more than 17,000 local community
members that live on and around the Kampar Peninsula.

RER-CP is not located within a jurisdiction covered by a Jurisdictional REDD+ Programme or a

jurisdictional forestry baseline.

RER-CP will use the following activities to achieve a four-pronged restoration approach: Protect,
Assess, Restore, and Manage.

Project Crediting Activity

Page 28 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Avoided Planned Deforestation (APD)

The primary VCS activity that the Project will undertake is the avoiding of planned deforestation and
conversion of 78,425 ha of the landscape into industrial Acacia fiber plantations. The Project avoids
the risk of conversion, which is the baseline scenario. The baseline is associated with large
amounts of carbon emissions from the activities required to clear, plant, and manage Acacia.
Additional carbon emissions from the application of fertilizers and forest loss from infrastructure
development will also be avoided. The baseline scenario is more clearly set forth below in Chapter 3
in § 3.4.

Map 1- Operation Plan of the Project

The REDD+ activities and the associated restoration of wetlands over the lifespan of the Project will
allow the biodiversity of the Kampar to remain intact and flourish. This activity will, in turn, ensure
the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem services of the Kampar Peninsula benefiting the local
communities, the Province of Riau, and indeed all of Indonesia.

Peatland Rewetting and Conservation

The Project has identified the location of the 146 km of legacy drainage canals that were
constructed legally and illegally for selective logging purposes. The canals were used along with a
system of rails for access into the forest and to float logs out of the forest to the nearest river or
coastline. Canals are usually about 1-2 meters wide by 1-2 meters deep. The Project prioritizes the

Page 29 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

old drainage canals for closure (based on distance from the nearest road access) as mapped from
satellite images and conducts field surveys to confirm its status and conduct topographic profile
survey (see Map 2). These profile surveys allow RER-CP water management specialists to identify
the approximate number and location of dams to be constructed.

Map 2 - Map of the RER legacy canals from former HPH logging activity and current dams

RER aims to raise water levels in 40-cm steps along

the length of each canal, essential for establishing a
series of terraces that will slow the flow of water and
retain peat moisture longer during the dry season.
Once the dams are established, the RER Project area
will retain water more consistent with the natural
seasonal variations of rainfall and the natural
characteristics of the former undrained landscape.

RER plans to close all of the canals during the ten Figure 2 - Dam construction in RER
years beginning in 2016. So far, 23 of 36 canals have
been closed, totalling 126 km using 63 hand-built dams. The Project's goal is to finish construction
of all dams in all the canals by 2025. Inspection of all dams occurs at least annually.

The wetlands restoration and conservation activities are intended to rewet a 300-meter radial
distance from each legacy canal and slow the rate at which peat water table declines during the dry

Page 30 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

season in order to maintain the hydrological stability of the landscape. The rewetting activity will
reduce oxidation of peat that would otherwise occur. It will also ensure that the landscape will be
resistant to the damages caused by anthropogenic use of fire.

Dam Construction

Dams are being constructed from a variety of materials pursuant to a Canal Blocking SOP (see
Appendix 23). Sandbag dams are used at the mouth of each canal where it empties into a river.
Each 25-30 kg sandbag is constructed from a synthetic polypropylene material known as "Geo-
Reinfox" that is resistant to corrosion and UV light. The bags are layered in a stair-step fashion to
withstand the weight of the water pushing against the dam.

Additional dams are constructed upstream in canals, in remote locations, and/or on wild canals
without heavy equipment access from lighter weight, recycled materials such as aluminium piping
and sections of used "press felt" conveyor obtained from APRIL's paper mill manufacturing facility.
The felt has low permeability (26-35 cfm), has reached the end of its useful life and is repurposed
for the dam building6. It is made from a combination of nylon and polyester. Experience has shown
that the press felt becomes impregnated with soil particles, moss and lichens and becomes less
permeable with time, increasing its ability to retain water behind the aluminium frame.

The dams will ensure that the water flow from the old drainage canals is substantially decreased, so
that peat water table variations will follow natural seasonal rainfall fluctuations.

Water Level Monitoring

In addition to the canal blocking, the Project monitors the water table in the Project Area to ensure
the effectiveness of the canal blocking programme. To date, the Project has in situ 75 water table
monitoring points (each is a dipwell and subsidence pole) in the RER-Project Area. These are the
GAN Transect (9 monitoring points), the TBOT Transect (9 monitoring points), the SMN Transect (4
monitoring points), the 4 GCN clusters (36 monitoring points) and the PSM Transect (17 monitoring
points). These have been monitored every 3-months and have been increased now to every two
months. A number of the monitoring clusters in GCN are situated around dams. Additionally, there
are currently four automated level-loggers along the PSM Transect that automatically measure
water table levels multiple times per day, with stored data collected on an ongoing basis. The
Project will continue to expand its water table and subsidence monitoring capacity with the
inclusion of additional dipwells, subsidence poles and automated level-loggers, as well as
increasing automated level-loggers around dams. Further monitoring information is provided in
Chapter 5 and Appendix 24.

Page 31 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 3: Installation of monitoring equipment: level loggers, dipwells and subsidence poles)

Monitoring of the dams, water tables, and subsidence rates will ensure that the Project is
maintaining its activities and that the landscape remains intact.

Additional Non-Crediting Activity

Planting & Revegetation

The Project will also, as a non-carbon generating

activity, undertake planting and revegetation
program. RER-CP intends to revegetate 875 ha of
heavily degraded forest lands by planting seedlings
of native origin and conducting assisted
regeneration in areas that have been identified as
degraded from prior logging activities. The project
Figure 3 - Reforestation Flow
has established 4 native species tree nurseries on
the Kampar Peninsula and aims to identify and revegetate highly degraded areas with strip-planting
and assisted regeneration. See Map 4 below. The activity is undertaken via a three-step process:
assessment, restoring via active and natural efforts and monitoring the results.

Page 32 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 4 - 875 ha of Heavily Degraded areas to be reforested and revegetated

Native Species & Nurseries

The RER-Carbon Project is committed to replanting native and

endangered species only. RER produces seedlings in the
nurseries from 70 different native tree species, primarily early
successional species. RER has replanted and revegetated 68 ha
in the GCN and GAN concession areas.

New seedlings come from three sources: 1) uprooted seedlings;

2) seeds that have fallen from forest trees; or 3) cuttings from
mature trees.

RER has primarily focused on the use of uprooted seedlings. It

involves carefully removing individual tree seedlings from the
forest floor and placing them in planting bags with peat soil. They
are then maintained in one of the four nurseries for 12-18
months; until their roots, stem, and leaves are strong and 'ready- Figure 4 - Seedling gathering

to-plant’. These seedlings are taken from locations in the forest where abundant seedlings exist.
The intention is to plant in the identified highly degraded locations. See Map 4 – Heavily Degraded
Area above.

Page 33 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

RER also seeks to follow the flowering (and seed production), of certain dipterocarp tree species,
which rarely and unpredictably produce fruit. Known locally as; Meranti Bakau (Shorea uliginosa),
Meranti Bunga (Shorea teysmanniana), and Meranti Paya (Shorea platycarpa). The IUCN classifies
these species as Vulnerable (VU), Endangered (EN) and Critically Endangered (CR), respectively.
When these dipterocarps flower, which happened in 2018 (the first time in the past five years)
special efforts were made to acquire such seeds for the nurseries, and over 10,000 seeds were
collected from March to May 2018. These endangered species were a favourite of past commercial
logging activities. The efforts in 2018 established over 6,000 seedlings of these endangered
species, which are now available for planting at different locations.

Assessment Prior to Planting

Following the initial identification of highly degraded areas (the

combined result of drainage, intensive logging and fire) from satellite
imagery, RER-CP uses a DJI Phantom 4 Pro Drone to obtain high-
definition photos to stratify the site based on the density of natural tree
regeneration. Based on strata, existing vegetation data is collected
from 0.04 ha field plots (11.28-metre radius) and used by the
Restoration Manager to develop a restoration site prescription which is
then implemented by the Estate staff.

Two main types of planting take place:

Figure 5 - Phantom 4 Pro Drone
1. Active Planting of the
seedlings in thoroughly
degraded and open
areas in regular strips,
currently at 5m x 5m
intervals, and
2. Enrichment Planting of
the seedlings in
degraded areas but
not so intensely, so
that seedlings that are
naturally in situ remain
and are part of the Figure 6 – High-definition drone photos of highly degraded site.
regrowth process.

Page 34 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The project also undertakes a combination of

"Assisted Natural Regeneration" and
“Enrichment Planting” in designated areas
where the ferns and vines are cut back to allow
the growth of in situ seedlings and where
seedlings “may be” planted where gaps exist.

Fertilizers are not used in any of the

regeneration techniques described above. As no
Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation
Figure 7 - Replanting native seedlings in RER
(ARR) crediting is claimed for this activity which
acts as a way to increase the conservativeness of the Project’s GHG accounting. But it also helps
with the non-carbon project’s efforts to undertake long term regeneration activity.

Monitoring

In both assisted Natural Regeneration and Enrichment

Planting, the seedlings and young saplings are periodically
monitored. Approximately 1-3 months after seedling
establishment, a Restoration Quality Assessment is
conducted to identify seedling survival and stocking. At 6
and 12 months after establishment a Restoration
Monitoring Assessment is conducted to further assess
stocking and determine the need for "blanking" to replace
dead seedlings and "weeding" to reduce competition with
ferns and vines. No fertilizers are used. Data related to all
activity is maintained for each plot. The RER Carbon Project
does not anticipate to originate any carbon crediting from
any replanting or revegetation activity.

All of the Project’s replanting and revegetation activity is

managed and overseen by RER and APRIL staff, including a
dedicated biology science team led by PhD
biologists/conservationists. The field teams that operate
the nurseries collect seedlings, undertake the planting,
vegetation clearance and maintenance of the replanting
areas are, and mostly local community members retained
as staff by RER and APRIL.

Figure 8 - GHG Flux tower in the Kampar

Page 35 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Research: GHG Flux Towers

The APRIL Group has established three GHG Flux Towers on the Kampar Peninsula, one of which
(the third and last one built) is located in the RER Project Area and was completed in May of 2017.
Since October 2016, when the first tower came online, these towers have begun to collect
greenhouse gases (GHG) flux data. Findings from this monitoring activity are not anticipated to be
available for the use of the Project until the first baseline re-assessment in 2025. APRIL has a
dedicated GHG research team that coordinates with the RER programme and has a highly qualified
science team led by PhD researchers.

Forest Protection

The RER Carbon Project also maintains active forest protection efforts in the Project Area with its 31
contracted Security staff; 16 of which are focused on forest protection efforts every day. Over 80%
of RER's total workforce (including rangers and fire protection services) are drawn from the two
regencies in Riau where RER is located, Kabupaten Pelalawan and Kepulauan Meranti. The RER
forest protection staff are overseen and managed by the RER programme managers.

The Ranger teams have posts located at the primary access routes into the forest along rivers and
conduct regular patrols to monitor the forest use by the local community members. The primary
users of the forest are local fisherman, whereby Rangers document individuals using the rivers and
collect data to monitor the seasonal and annual trends in fish harvesting. Ranger’s also monitor
and document the collection of songbirds, the collecting of plant material for medicinal and other
uses, and the extraction of other non-timber forest products.

Fire Prevention & Suppression

The RER Carbon Project has a fire

management program that is designed
and implemented to detect and rapidly
suppress any fires that may occur in the
RER Project Area. Peatland fires are a
significant source of carbon emissions.
Since the Project began in 2016, there
have been no fires in the Project Area. The
last known fire was in 2014, before the Figure 9 - RER Fire teams during a regular training session
start of this Project. RER and APRIL
regularly monitor "hotspot" data from various sources to identify potential fire incidents that may be
inside or close to the RER boundary. If a hotspot point is observed, the coordinates of the location
(latitude/longitude) are immediately transferred to field teams, which check the location to
determine the appropriate action.

Page 36 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The Project also conducts fire suppression training, real-time fire patrols and monitors remotely
sensed Hotspot data, not just in the RER Project Area, but the whole of the Kampar Peninsula.
Hotspot data is publicly available online from the NOAA and MODIS satellites.

The RER Project has also been purchasing specialized forest firefighting equipment that is
lightweight for easy mobility in the forest. These high-pressure water pumps are ideal for moving
water long distances to extinguish fires. RER has more than 15 such water pumps, 3-km of hose,
and a variety of standard hand-tools to contain and control forest and land fires. In 2017, RER's
forest protection team was the overall winner at the annual APRIL Firefighter Competition.

The fire prevention teams are dedicated RER staff and overseen by RER management. Like the
forest protection staff, most stem from the local and surrounding areas. Overall fire management is
conducted from APRIL’s provincial offices in Kerinci where professional firefighting professionals
closely monitor digital hotspot information. APRIL’s fires teams from adjoining concessions are
generally able to assist with any issues if there was a need.

In 2016, APRIL's Fire Free Village Program was implemented in all nine communities adjacent to the
Kampar Peninsula, which incentivizes the community over a two-year period to avoid the use of fire
in land preparation (i.e. no burn agriculture).

Conservation and Habitat

Management Activities

The Project is supporting conservation and

biodiversity management by not only
protecting the landscape but also by
evaluating and assessing its biodiversity. RER
has undertaken extensive camera trapping,
bird monitoring, and floristic surveys and has
recorded 797 species of plants and animals.
See § 1.12.6 below for more details.

In 2015, the first biodiversity baseline

assessments were conducted in GCN, SMN
and TBOT to identify the presence of wildlife
using up to 152 camera traps on a 2 x 2 km
grid and 32 transects each at 2-km length.

Since 2016, RER participated in two crucial

bird monitoring programmes, including
migratory raptor monitoring and the Asian
Waterbird Census. Since 2017, RER began Figure 10 - Identified Plant & Animal Species in RER

annual deployment of camera traps to further document wildlife in the forest. In 2019, the RER

Page 37 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

team deployed a total of 76 camera traps, which cumulatively recorded 7,142 nights on the Kampar
Peninsula and Padang Island.

Additionally, in 2019, the first insect survey in RER was undertaken, focusing on the Order Odonata,
which includes dragonflies and damselflies.

In 2019, APRIL commissioned Yayasan SINTAS to survey the Kampar Peninsula, 1 of 6 priority
landscapes as part of the Sumatra-Wide Tiger Survey for the Critically Endangered Sumatran Tiger
(Panthera tigris sumatera) using protocols from the Indonesian National Tiger Recovery Program
that is part of the Global Tiger Initiative. The survey of 21 separate 17x17 kilometre grid cells over
eight months identified tiger presence, occupancy rate, threats and made recommendations for
future management; the survey is scheduled to conclude in early 2020.

RER’s management is made up of well qualified professional conservationists and supported by

local staff. RER and APRIL regularly work with conservation organisations (e.g. Yayasan SINTAS,
etc.) to monitor and research local wildlife. Local labour and general staff from the nearby
communities are employed to assist and support the conservation work.

Community-Based Sustainable Development

The Project Community Relations teams invest considerable time and resources to working with the
local communities. This ensures that traditional activities - like fishing and the gathering of forest
honey - are protected, small businesses are supported, and that people are informed about the
importance of the environment and biodiversity conservation.

In 2017, RER began partnering with local honey harvesters from the Kampar Peninsula. Forest
honey is natural raw honey that is directly extracted from Sialang tree beehives. RER is working to
assist the honey harvesters and the communities in which they live by purchasing honey, marketing
and selling the product as "Madu Hutan Riau." In turn, the Project commits funds for community
relations projects that include agroforestry, healthy living and hygiene standards, religious
celebrations, sports activities, and community volunteering.

RER has dedicated management in staff that make up the Community relationship teams based on
the Kerinci offices. They oversee all community and sustainability activity. They are supported by
staff that reside in the local communities that act as liaisons between RER / APRIL and the local
community, usually via WhatsApp or other social media groups.

No-burn Vegetable Farming

Through their partner BIDARA, the RER-CP works with villagers in Sangar sub-village and Segamai
Village on the Kampar Peninsula to support "no-burn vegetable farming". The farming programme
has been set up to prevent the risk of fire from threatening both the natural forest and surrounding
Acacia fibre plantations. Land clearing with fire (slash-n-burn) is a common practice by local

Page 38 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

farmers. APRIL and the Project aim to provide the communities living around RER with an
alternative method of land preparation that will produce valuable food crops.

Farming activities are intensified on small plots of land whereby community members are organized
into farming groups. Groups are initially provided with seedlings of mainly vegetable crops such as
red and green chilli, red ginger, eggplant, tomato, cayenne, and green beans together with
equipment and supplies like hand tools, fertilizers and shade nets. A field school is organized as a
learning platform for the community to discuss problems and improve techniques for crop
productivity.

In conjunction with the APRIL Community Relations team, the RER Community Relations Team
oversee and manage the no-burn activities. As noted, the activity also includes BIDARA who
undertake the field school activities and engage the local communities with this “extension-like”
service.

Project Activity Participants

All of the Project’s crediting activity is managed by the Riau Ecosystem Restoration programme and
staff reports to APRIL management. The field management is administered through the RER and
APRIL offices in Kerinci. The RER Project is overseen by dedicated management teams with
dedicated staff that undertake all of the activity related to peatland restoration. This includes dam
construction and monitoring of the same. Monitoring activity is also undertaken by RER and APRIL
management and staff. All licensing, forest planning, human resources, peatland science and
operational activity is undertaking by RER and APRIL staff, based primarily at the Kerinci offices.
However, sustainability managers are primarily based in APRIL’s Jakarta offices, with regular travel
to Riau.

RER & APRIL have engaged third-party organisations to assist with various project activities. For
example, the University of Riau was involved in peat sampling in the PT GAN block. This activity was
not solely for the RER Project though, and thus they have not been listed as a project participant.

Members of the local community make up a sizable portion of the RER and APRIL on the ground
staff that support the Project, including the on the ground staff that build and maintain the dams.
APRIL forest mensuration teams also draw staff from the local community.

Page 39 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Project Location

Geographical Location
The Riau Ecosystem Restoration Carbon Project is located in the Republic of Indonesia, on the
central, eastern side of Sumatra. It is located in the Province of Riau in the Kabupaten or "Regency"
of Pelalawan located adjacent to the Strait of Malacca. (See Map 5).

Map 5 - RER Carbon Project located in Indonesia

The Province of Riau (see Map 6) has a total area of 87,023 km2 and its capital and largest city is
Pekanbaru7. Pelalawan Regency (see Map 6) makes up 12,785 km 2 and has as its administrative
centre, Pangkalan Kerinci8. The Project area is located 105 km from Pekanbaru and about 845 km
from the capital of Indonesia, Jakarta. The closest major city to the Project Area is Singapore, which
lies 130 km to the north-east across the Strait of Malacca.

Page 40 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 6- Project Area Location in Riau Province

Geographical Boundaries
The Project itself is located on the Kampar Peninsula, which has an area of roughly 670,000 ha and
is on the eastern coast of Sumatra and the eastern edge of the Pelalawan Regency. It is roughly
wedge-shaped, defined by the Selat Panjang Strait to its north and east and the Kampar River,
which forms its southern boundary (see Map 7). The Kampar's western boundary is partly the Siak
River and is roughly composed of a broad swath of land where the mineral soils of the foothills
merge into the peat soils of the coastal plain that stretches eastward to the Strait of Malacca.

Page 41 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 7- Project Area Location

The Kampar Peninsula itself is comprised almost entirely of tropical peat swamp forests. Its central
core, where the Project is located, has two peat domes, the western dome being more prominent in
size than the eastern dome. The edges of the Kampar are all converted lands, made up of industrial
tree plantations, oil palm plantations, some communal farmlands, and degraded environments.

Page 42 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 8- Kabupaten Pelalawan and the Project location

Project Area
The Project Areas itself is 130,090 ha and is made up of four individual former industrial selective
logging concessions. PT. Global Alam Nusantara (GAN) with 36,525 ha is located in the northwest,
PT. Sinar Mutiara Nusantara (SMN) with 32,776 ha lies in the northeast, PT. Gemilang Cipta
Nusantara (GCN), the smallest of the four concessions with 20,123 ha, is situated in the southeast
and the largest, PT. The Best One Unitimber (TBOT) with 40,666 ha is located in the southwest (see
Map 8 above).

The projects geographical coordinates are as indicated below:

Northernmost point: 0° 36' 26.95" N 102° 37' 07.98" E

Easternmost point: 0° 28' 11.24" N 103° 00' 29.10" E

Southernmost point: 0° 18' 12.28" N 102° 25' 17.42" E

Westernmost point: 0° 19' 59.92" N 102° 23' 03.75" E

Conditions Prior to Project Initiation

The conditions existing before the Project initiation perfectly matches the baseline scenario (see §
3.4 Baseline Scenario).

Page 43 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Environmental Conditions
Below is a brief description of the environmental conditions in the Kampar Peninsula, in which the
Project Area lies, with information regarding climate, hydrology, topography, geology & soil and a
variety of landcover classes.

Altitude

The project site itself lies at an altitude of just over sea level, with the highest location in the Project
area being the peat dome in the north-western part of the project area at 11.49 metres above sea
level.

Climate

APRIL operates nine (9) weather

stations on the Kampar Peninsula and
has up to date weather data. In
general, as the Project Area is located
a mere 55 km north of the equator,
the climate is tropical: hot, humid, and
moist all of the year. Two dry periods
occur every year on the Kampar
Peninsula: late January to mid-March
and June to September. Under the
Map 9- Weather stations on the Kampar Peninsula
Köppen-Geiger climate classification
system, it is classified as a tropical rainforest climate or Af.

Temperature

Figure 11 below shows the average monthly temperatures recorded throughout 2017, 2018 and
2019 in the RER Project Area.

Figure 11- RER Project Area 2017-2019 Average Monthly Temperature (degrees Celsius)

Page 44 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Rainfall

The average annual rainfall in the RER Project Area between 2002 – 2019 is 2,136 mm, averaging
178-mm per month. Two dry seasons and two wet seasons occur each year. Dry seasons occur from
January to mid-March and again from June – September. Rain season occurs from October –
December and again in mid-March-May. The highest recorded monthly rainfall was 481.5 mm in
November of 2002 while the lowest monthly rainfall was recorded in February 2014 with only 0.5
mm of precipitation falling. See Figure 12 below.

350
289.9
300

250 218.4 229.3

200.2
200 182.3
157 166.4 168.8
126.4 133.7 138.6
150 125.1

100

50

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2002-2019 Average RER Project Area Rainfall (mm)

Figure 12- RER Project Area 2002-2019 Average Monthly Rainfall (mm)

Topography

In a topographical context, the entire Kampar Peninsula is Southern Eastern Coastal Swamp.
Physiographically, the Kampar peninsula (including Pelalawan district) is a coastal plain within the
larger Central Sumatra basin. Pelalawan district is located in transitions between Central Sumatra
and South Sumatra Basin. The northwest part is located in the Central Sumatra Basin, and the
southeast part is part of the South Sumatera basin. There is no clear separation between these two
basins, but it can be distinguished by the presence of Tigapuluh highland and Limau hill. Located in
the southeast part of the Kampar Peninsula, RER is not impacted by the ocean waves of Malacca
Strait and is formed by alluvium and swamp sediment 9.

Hydrology

Riparian wetlands have been defined as lowland terrestrial ecotones which derive their high water
tables and alluvial soil from drainage and erosion of adjacent uplands on the one side or from
periodic flooding from the other10. The boundary of a riparian ecosystem is difficult to delineate and
varies in width from 20 ‐ 300 m from river edge, sometimes reaching 500 m. But still, riparian
areas can be identified from satellite image colour gradation. In RER, riparian forest is identified by
the flowing water of streams of Sangar, Turip, Kutub, and Serkap River.

Page 45 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Geology and Soils

RER is formed by two soil

types: tropohemists‐
tropofibrists and troposaprists‐
tropohemists. Tropohemists‐
tropofibrists soils indicate the
presence of deep peatland,
while troposaprists-
tropohemists soils are
associated with shallow
peatland. See Map 10. Direct
peat depth measurement and
spatial modelling performed for
this assessment show that the
shallowest measured peat is
Map 10 - Peat Soils of the Kampar Peninsula
2.98 m, and the deepest is 15.49
m, with an average of 8.17 m from 443 sampling plots. See also below at § 3.3.1.5. The underlying
mineral soils are comprised primarily of young superficial sedimentary and meta-sedimentary
deposits made up of (clay, silts, gravel, peat swamps, etc.) and to a lesser extent older superficial
deposits of clay, silts, clayey gravels, vegetation rafts and granite sands. See Map 11 below.

Map 11- Geology Map of Kampar Peninsula11

Page 46 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Landcover

There is not a single type of peat swamp forest but rather a gradation of forest types along a
nutrient gradient. The edges of peat swamp forests are relatively nutrient‐rich, whereas the centre
is nutrient‐poor12. Likewise, the forest becomes smaller (shorter) with an even canopy, moving from
the edges to the centre. Kampar Peninsula landscape has two major types of forest: mixed peat
swamp forest (MPSF) and pole forest (PF)13. The forested areas can be divided into mixed peat
swamp forest and pole forest the latter of which is also known as "padangs" and found at the top of
deep peat domes14. MPSF is a forest composition with typical vegetation of a mixture of peat
swamp forest canopy cover and a xeromorphic tree structure. In contrast, the pole forest has
vegetation composition with a low canopy cover and small diameter of trees, averaging less than 30
cm15. The floristic analysis shows that RER is mainly categorized as MPSF based on horizontal and
vertical structures and low pole forest in the northwest. MPSF is dominated by trees with a height
reaching 30 – 35m with trees in the mid‐canopy layer having a DBH of >20cm 16,17. The RER Project
uses the Indonesian National Standard (SNI 7645:2010) for land cover classification of the dense,
medium, and sparse for the mixed swamp forest and then included the pole peat swamp forest as a
separate type of landcover (Peat Dome Forest) as it was floristically unique. The result is the project
has five land-cover classes in RER, which include: Peat Dome Forest (23,747.7 ha), Dense MPSF
(19,287.1 ha), Medium MPSF (63,327.8 ha), Sparse MPSF (22,438.6 ha), and non‐forest (1,229.5
ha). Additionally, there is 59.2 ha of the area recognized as water.

Land Cover &

Forest Composition

The composition of the project

area is divided between the mixed
peat swamp forest of varying
density (105,053.5 ha), the Low
Pole Peat Dome Forest (23,747.7
ha), and Non-Forest Open Areas
(1,229.5 ha) as shown in Map 12.

Based on the canopy opening and

the understory structure, it is
possible to identify four forest
classes and five land use classes,
exclusive of water. Map 12: Landcover of Project

a) "Peat Dome Forest" is a dense low-pole forest. These forests comprise densely stocked
small trees (poles). The most common species are Shorea spp, Austrobuxus nitidus,
Campnosperma coriaceum, Litsea spp, Pandanus spp, Tristaniopsis merguensis and
Calophyllum ferrugineum. The canopy is continuous and has an average height between 15

Page 47 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

and 23 metres. The vegetation is dense with 3,188 tree stems per hectare, the average
basal area was 32.5 m 2ha, and the average dbh was 22.2 cm.
b) "Dense Swamp Forest" comprises of forest that has a history of light logging in the past. The
canopy is dense (70+% closure) and multi-storied and has a height of 20-40m. The
understory is generally dense. The species diversity is high and common species include
Pandanus, Shorea teysmanniana, Shorea uliginosa, Campnosperma coriaceum, Mangifera
parvifolia and Syzygium chloranthum. The trees tend to be buttressed with roots protruding
above ground. The vegetation is dense with 1,514 tree stems per hectare, average basal
area of 28.1 m2/ha, and average dbh of 27.2 cm.
c) "Medium Swamp Forest" comprises of forest that has a history of moderately heavy logging
in the past. Logging that removed the largest and most preferred tropical hardwoods using
a system of canals and rails. The canopy is discontinuous ranging from 40-70% closure and
has a height of 20-40m. The under-storey is generally dense. The species diversity is similar
to dense forest with less volumes of commercial species. The trees tend to be buttressed.
The vegetation is dense with smaller trees on average than dense forest, 1,597 tree stems
per hectare, average basal area of 22.8 m2/ha, and the average dbh was 23.9 cm.
d) “Sparse Swamp Forest" is an open natural forest. The canopy is discontinuous with a
scattering of remnant overstory trees ranging in height from 15-30 meters and natural tree
regeneration that is competing with dense lianas and ferns. The species diversity is high
including common swamp species with reduced numbers of commercial species, higher
numbers of pioneer species with common species including Shorea teysmanniana, Ilex
cymose, Campnosperma coriaceum, Syzygium chloranthum, Pandanus, Madhuca
motleyana, Shorea uliginosa, Austrobuxus nitidus, and Parastemon urophyllus. The trees
tend to be non-buttressed. The vegetation is less dense with smaller trees on average than
medium forest, 1,212 tree stems per hectare, average basal area of 16.4 m 2/ha, and the
average dbh was 23.2 cm. The condition is a result of a combination of canal drainage and
intensive logging. This condition can also be found immediately next to parts of the rivers
(Serkap and Turip).
e) "Non-Forest" are areas that are devoid of sufficient trees to be classified as a forest. These
are open areas covered in a variety of non-tree vegetation and are located in areas where
substantial logging has occurred in the past or areas where trees are generally not found
(sandy riverbanks, etc.).

Page 48 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Biodiversity Conditions
The forests of the Kampar Peninsula have
been degraded in the past decades since
1970. The forests in the Project Area have
experienced some degree of commercial
and/or illegal logging, except in the low pole
forest on the peat domes where there are
few commercially viable sized trees. The
Project area, although remote and without
permanent human habitation, nonetheless
has been an area where humans have
impacted the landscape, from hunting,
fishing, the gathering of forest resources,
Figure 13- Degraded forest of the Kampar Peninsula
and logging. These activities have all had a
substantial impact on the landscape.

Floristic Species

The RER-Project Area is host to at least 190 recognized plant and tree species 18. Of those 135 are
listed on the IUCN's list of species with at least 9 listed on the IUCN Red List as globally threatened.
These include several commercial wood species (i.e. Pterocarpus indicus, Ctenolophon parvifolius,
and Hopea ferruginea Parijs) as well as vulnerable plant species (i.e. Tristaniopsis littoralis and
Gonystylus bancanus) and recognized medicinal plants (i.e. Eurycoma longifolia) that are
threatened from overuse.

Figure 14- IUCN statuses

Table 17 below provides the protection status of the rare floristic species inventoried (as part of the
forest management process and HCV assessments) and as considered by both the International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Page 49 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Common Name Scientific Name IUCN CITES

Anisoptera marginata Anisoptera marginata VU
Ctenolophon parvifolius Ctenolophon parvifolius VU
Gonystylus bancanus Gonystylus bancanus CR II
Shorea platycarpa Shorea platycarpa CR
Shorea teysmanniana Shorea teysmanniana EN
Shorea uliginosa Shorea uliginosa VU
Tetramerista glabra Tetramerista glabra VU
Vatica pauciflora Vatica pauciflora VU
Vatica teysmanniana Vatica teysmanniana CR
Table 17- List of threatened plants in the Project

Fauna Species

Faunal Taxonomy

The RER-Project Area is home to a diverse array of animal species, including 76 mammals, 107
amphibians and reptiles, 89 species of fish, and 28 kinds of identified Odonata (dragonflies and
damsel flies). Endangered species that have been observed in the Project areas include the
Sumatran Tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae), the Malayan Sun Bear (Helarctos malayanus), the
Sunda Pangolin (Manis javanica), the Sunda Clouded Leopard (Neofelis diardi), and the Flat-Headed
Cat (Prionailurus planiceps).

Figure 15- Photos of threatened mammals in The Project. a) Sumatran Tiger, b) Malayan Sun Bear, c) Sunda
Pangolin, d) Sunda Clouded Leopard, e) Flat-Headed Cat

The tables below provide the protection status of the rare fauna species inventoried (as part of
forest management process and HCV assessments) as considered by both IUCN and CITES. The two
tables are divided into two classes: mammals and birds.

Page 50 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Common name Scientific Name IUCN CITES

Agile Gibbon Hylobates agilis EN I
Asian Small-clawed Otter Aonyx cinereus VU I
Bearded Pig Sus barbatus VU
Binturong Arctictis binturong VU
East Sumatran Banded Langur Presbytis femoralis ssp. percura VU II
Flat-headed Cat Prionailurus planiceps EN I
Malay Tapir Tapirus indicus EN I
Malayan Sun Bear Helarctos malayanus VU I
Otter Civet Cynogale bennettii EN II
Pig-tailed Macaque Macaca nemestrina EN II
Rajah Spiny Rat Maxomys rajah VU
Sambar Deer Rusa unicolor VU
Silvered Langur Trachypithecus cristatus VU II
Smooth-coated Otter Lutrogale perspicillata VU I
Sumatran Tiger Panthera tigris ssp. sumatrae CR I
Sunda Clouded Leopard Neofelis diardi VU I
Sunda Pangolin Manis javanica CR I
Sunda Slow Loris Nycticebus coucang EN I
Whitehead's Spiny Rat Maxomys whiteheadi VU
Table 18- List of threatened mammals in The Project

Birds

The Project has identified over

307 species of birds in the Project
Area through numerous
inventories, many of which have
IUCN status. Threatened species
include the Helmeted Hornbill
(Rhinoplax vigil), the Wrinkled
Hornbill (Rhabdotorrhinus
corrugatus), the White-Winged
Duck (Asarcornis scutulata), The
Milky Stork (Mycteria cinereal)
and the rarest of all storks, the
Storm's Stork (Ciconia stormi).

Figure 16- Photos of threatened bird in The Project. a) Rhinoceros Hornbill, b) White-
winged Duck, c) Storm's Stork

Page 51 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Common Name Scientific Name IUCN CITES

Black Hornbill Anthracoceros malayanus VU II
Black Partridge Melanoperdix nigra VU
Bonaparte's Nightjar Caprimulgus concretus VU
Great Hornbill Buceros bicornis VU I
Greater Green Leafbird Chloropsis sonnerati EN
Helmeted Hornbill Rhinoplax vigil CR I
Hook-billed Bulbul Setornis criniger VU
Javan Myna Acridotheres javanicus VU
Large Green-pigeon Treron capellei VU
Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilos javanicus VU
Long-tailed Parakeet Psittacula longicauda VU II
Malay Crestless Fireback Lophura erythrophthalma VU
Milky Stork Mycteria cinerea EN I
Rhinoceros Hornbill Buceros rhinoceros VU II
Ruby-throated Bulbul Pycnonotus dispar VU
Short-toed Coucal Centropus rectunguis VU
Storm's Stork Ciconia stormi EN
Wallace's Hawk-eagle Nisaetus nanus VU II
White-winged Duck Asarcornis scutulata EN I
Wreathed Hornbill Rhyticeros undulatus VU II
Wrinkled Hornbill Rhabdotorrhinus corrugatus EN II
Table 19- List of threatened birds in The Project

Furthermore, as the Project is an AFOLU Project, we provided the environmental conditions of the
Project Area above (see § 1.13.1 – Environmental Conditions).

Page 52 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Compliance with Laws, Statutes and Other Regulatory

Frameworks
RER-CP complies with the legal compliance requirements of the VCS Standards (v4.0) § 3.1.3,
which states, “Projects and the implementation of project activities shall not lead to the violation of
any applicable law, regardless of whether or not that law is enforced.”

The Project has been designed and implemented to comply with the applicable national laws and
regulations of the Republic of Indonesia. The Project is also in compliance with applicable laws and
regulations of the Province of Riau and the Regency of Pelalawan. This also includes the laws,
decrees, and regulations concerning relevant aspects of carbon emission and carbon offsetting.
Furthermore, the project has harmonized itself with the REDD+ National Strategy developed by the
government of the Republic of Indonesia.

Applicable Treaties, Laws, Regulations & Decrees

International Treaties
The Project recognizes and complies with the requirements of the international treaties and
agreements, including but not limited to, the following:

No. Name of Agreement or Treaty Date of Effect

1 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance 21 Dec 1975
2 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) 01 Jul 1975
3 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development June 1992
4 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) 21 Mar 1994
5 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 29 Dec 1993
6 United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) 14 Dec 2005
7 Kyoto Protocol (COP 3) 16 Feb 2005
8 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity 11 Sept 2003
9 Bali Action Plan (COP 13) Dec 2007
10 The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and 12 Oct 2014
Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the
Convention on Biological Diversity
11 Paris Agreement (COP 21) 04 Nov 2016
Table 20- International Treaties

Laws Regulations & Decrees of the Republic of Indonesia

The Project recognizes and complies with the requirements of the laws of the Republic of Indonesia
and relevant government regulations, including but not limited to, the following:

No. Name of Law, Regulation or Decree

1 Presidential Decree No.32/1990 on the Management of Protected Areas
2 Law No. 80/1957 on Ratification of International Labour Organisation Convention of Equal
Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value
3 Law No. 1/1970 on Work Safety
4 Law No. 5/1990 on Conservation of Living Resources and Their Ecosystems
5 Law No. 3/1992 on Labour Social Security

Page 53 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

6 Law No. 6/1994 concerning the Ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change
7 Law No. 21/1999 on Ratification of International Labour Organisation Convention on
Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation
8 Law No. 41/1999 on Forestry
9 Law No. 21/2000 on Labour Union
10 Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower
11 Law No. 17/2003 on State Finances
12 Law No. 2/2004 on Industrial Relations Dispute
13 Law No. 25/2004 on National Development Planning System
14 Law No. 40/2004 on National Social Security System
15 Law No. 17/2005 on National Long-Term Development Plan
16 Law No. 40/2007 on Company Law
17 Law No. 31/2009 on Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics
18 Law No. 32/2009 on Environmental Protection and Management
19 Government Regulation 8/1981 on Wage Protection
20 Government Regulation 14/1993 on Worker Social Security Program
21 Government Regulation No. 45/2004 on Forest Production
22 Government Regulation 6/2007 on Forest Arrangement and Formulation of Forest
Management Plan as well as Forest Exploitation
23 Government Regulation No. 26/2008 on National Spatial Plan (and amendment No. 13/2017)
24 Government Regulation No. 10/2010 on Procedure of Altering the Appropriation and Function
of Forest Areas
25 Government Regulation No. 15/2010 on Implementation of Spatial Structuring
26 Government Regulation No. 24/2010 on Use of Forest Areas
27 Government Regulation No. 47/2012 on Social and Environmental Responsibility of Limited
Liability Companies
28 Government Regulation No. 50/2012 on Occupational Safety and Health Management System
Application
29 Government Regulation No. 71/2014 on Peatland Protection and Ecosystem Management and
its subsequent amendment with Government Regulation No.57/2016
30 Government Regulation No. 46/2017 on Economic Instruments in Environmental Matters
Table 21- Laws Regulations & Decrees of the Republic of Indonesia

Ministerial Regulations and Decrees

The Project recognizes and complies with the requirements, regulations, and decrees of the
Ministry of Environment and Forestry, including but not limited to, the following:

No. Name of Regulation or Decree

1 Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. P.30 /2009 on Mechanisms for Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Degradation
2 Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. P.68/2009 on Organization of Demonstration Activities for
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
3 Ministry of Environment Regulation No. 13/2010 on Environmental Management and
Monitoring Effort
4 Ministry of Environment Regulation No. 16/2012 on Guidelines on the Development of
Environmental Products
5 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No.P.39/Menhut-II/2013 on Local Community
Development through Forestry Partnership
6 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No.P.12/Menhut-II/2014 on Types & Tariffs of
Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Forestry (re carbon credit transactions)

Page 54 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

7 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No.50/2014 on the Sale of Indonesian

Certified Emission Reductions
8 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No.P.71/Menhut-II/2017
Table 22- Ministerial Regulations and Decrees

Laws, Regulations, and Decrees Related to Ecosystem Restoration Concessions and

Management of Carbon Sequestration Activities
The following Regulations and Decrees apply specifically to the Project in regard to carbon
sequestration activities and the management of the Ecosystem Restoration Licenses of the four
concessions that make up the Project. The Project concessions are in compliance with the required
regulations and decrees, including but not limited to, the following:

No. Name of Regulation or Decree

1 Government Regulation No. 6/2007 on Forest Arrangement and Formulation of Forest
Management Plan as well as Forest Exploitation (and its amendment No. 3/2008)
2 Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. P.20/Menhut-II/2007 on Provision and Expansion if
Business Licenses for Forest Timber Utilization in Natural Forest, Business Licenses for
Ecosystem Restoration and Business Licenses for Forest Plantation in Production Forest,
as amended by No. P.61/2008, No.P50/2010/, No. P.26/2012 and No. P.31/Menhut-
II/2014
3 Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. P.36/Menhut-II/2009 on Procedures for Licensing of
Commercial Utilization of Carbon Sequestration and/or Storage in Production and
Protected Forests (this established the PAN/RAP carbon license and delineates allowable
activities) and as amended by MoF Decree No. P.11/2013
4 Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. P.56/Menhut-II/2009 on Business Planning for
Ecosystem Restoration License, amended by No. P.24/Menhut-II/2011
5 Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. P.50/Menhut-II/2010 on Procedures for Giving and
Expansion of Work Area Business (including IUPHHK Ecosystem Restoration) License
6 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation 43/2013 on Boundary Arrangement
7 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No.P.8/Menhut-II/2014 on Limitation for
the Allocation of the Concession Area for Business Licenses for Forest Timber Utilization in
Natural Forest, Business License for Ecosystem Restoration and Business License for
Forest Plantations in Production Forest
8 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No.P.64/Menhut-II/2014 on Application
of Silviculture Techniques within the Ecosystem Restoration Concession License in
Production Forest
9 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No.P.66/Menhut-II/2014on Procedure for
Periodical Forest Inventory and Work Plan in Ecosystem Restoration License
10 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No.P.73/Menhut-II/2014 on Workplan of
PAN/RAP in Production Forest
11 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No.P.74/Menhut-II/2014 on the
Implementation of Silviculture Techniques in Utilization of Carbon Sequestration and/or
Carbon Stock Business in Production Forests
12 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No.P.7/Menhut-II/2015 on Technical
Guidelines Rendering License and Non-License in Environment and Forestry Sector in
Implementation of One-Stop Service
13 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No.P.22/MENLHK/SET JEN/KUM.1/2018
on Norms, Standards, Procedures, and Criteria of One-Stop Integrated Services through
Electronically in Environmental Sector
Table 23- Decrees Related to Ecosystem Restoration Concessions and Management of Carbon Sequestration
Activities

Page 55 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The following Regulations and Decrees apply specifically to the Project regarding peatland
management. The Project concessions are in compliance with the required regulations and
decrees, including but not limited to, the following:

No. Name of Regulation or Decree

1 Government Regulation No. 71/2014 on Protection and Management of Peatland
Ecosystems (and amendment No 57/2016)
2 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No.P.14/MENLHK/SET
JEN/KUM.1/2/2017 on Procedures for Inventory and Determination of the Future of the
Function of Peat Ecosystems
3 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No.P.15/MENLHK/SET
JEN/KUM.1/2/2017 on the Procedures of Water Table Measurement in the Peat
Ecosystems Monitoring Point
4 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No.P.14/MENLHK/SET
JEN/KUM.1/2/2017 on the Technical Guidance for Restoring the Function of Peat
Ecosystems
5 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Decree No129/MenLHK/Setjen/PKL.0/2/2017 on
Restoration of Degraded Peatlands
6 Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No.P.16/MENLHK/SET
JEN/KUM.1/3/2019 on the Enactment and Management of Peat Dome Based on the
Peatland Hydrology Unit
Table 24- Decrees related to peatland management

Compliance with Indonesian Laws & Regulations

All production forestry concessions in Indonesia, including the RER Ecosystem Restoration (IUPHHK-
RE) concessions, must comply with numerous critical legal requirements after the license is
received. If a concession is unable to comply, it can be withdrawn. Requirements include:

a. Prepare 10-year work Plans (RKU). Completed and approved by the Ministry of Environment
and Forestry between May 2013 and December 2016
b. Prepare Annual work Plan (RKT) based on 10-year work Plan (RKU) every year since the year
RKU is approved, Completed and approved by the Provincial Environment and Forestry
Service.
c. Prepare and complete formal concession boundary demarcation (Tatas-Batas). They were
completed and approved by MoEF between February 2019 and October 2019.
d. Undergo Monitoring and Evaluation (MONEV) by the MoEF and have issued a MONEV
certificate. All of the concessions received their first MONEV certificate in August of 2019.

The above formal requirements have been completed for all four RER concessions and are each set
forth in §1.7.2 in more detail. Appendix 1 also provides copies of each license, approved RKU and
approved Monitoring and Evaluation Certificate.

RER must also provide a Monthly Report of Annual Work Plan progress. This reporting is regularly
submitted through an online reporting system e-restore established by MoEF. RER complies with
this requirement. An additional local legal compliance is the regular reporting of environmental
management and monitoring activities every 6 months to the District Environmental Service. RER
provides these reports and complies with its requirements.

Page 56 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

APRIL, and RER as an organisation within the greater APRIL group of companies that operate on the
Kampar peninsula, have rigorous legal compliance systems in place. Compliance with Indonesian
forestry law and regulations is handled both in the Kerinci headquarters and Jakarta offices. In
Kerinci, a dedicated legal planning team ensures that every concession in Riau is up-to-date on all
of its legal requirements from MoEF and the Provincial level forestry offices. One method of
ensuring legal compliance is the Monitoring and Evaluation with “Scoring system” that is used by
the MoEF. This system scores each concession on the implementation of legal and regulatory
requirements. A copy of the Scoring is available to the auditors. One example, some indicators in
the monitoring and evaluation specifically applies Forestry Regulation No. 66/Menhut-II/2015 on
procedures for periodical forest inventory and work plan in Ecosystem Restoration License. This
regulation is the primary regulation concerning Ecosystem Restoration concessions. The regulation
itself in the preamble references most other related forestry and ER concession requirements; P.
66/2015 is subject to all of the basic forestry legal requirements. APRILs’ management planning
teams ensure ongoing compliance with all relevant forestry regulations.

Additionally, APRIL’s Jakarta offices are where the Government Regulation teams are based. These
teams also ensure compliance from a higher corporate perspective of all necessary Indonesian
regulations and law. They also act as the primary interface with the MoEF regarding legal matters
related to concessions, including RER.

Additionally, the RER Project maintains compliance with the relevant labour law of Indonesia. All
RER employees are hired through APRIL’s human resource department that also ensures it
maintains compliance with Law 13/2003 Labour Law and any other associated regulations. See
Below at §2.2 for more details about compliance with labour laws and worker rights.

Page 57 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Participation under Other GHG Programmes

Projects Registered (or Seeking Registration) under Other GHG Programme(s)

RER-CP is in compliance with the requirements regarding participation in other GHG programmes as
mandated by the VCS Standards (v4.0) as fully set forth in § 3.19.1, which states “Project
proponents shall not claim credit for the same GHG emission reduction or removals under the VCS
Program and another GHG programme.

The RER-Carbon Project is not involved in any other GHG programmes, nor do the activities of the
Project fall under any other emissions trading scheme or other binding limits in relation to any to
GHG emissions programmes.

Additionally, the Project has not sought to generate any other type of GHG emission reductions
other than VCUs and has never received any other form of GHG-related environmental credit.

Projects Rejected by Other GHG Programmes

RER-CP is in compliance with the requirements regarding participation in other GHG programmes as
mandated by the § 3.19.7 of the VCS Standards (v4.0) in regard to application and rejection by
other GHG programmes.

The RER- Carbon Project has not applied for validation under any other GHG programme, nor has it
been rejected for by any other GHG programmes.

Page 58 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Other Forms of Credit

Emissions Trading Programs and Other Binding Limits

RER-CP is in compliance with the requirements regarding participation in other GHG programs as
mandated by the § 3.20.1 of the VCS Standards (v4.0) in regard to application and rejection by
other GHG programs.

The RER-Carbon Project is not generating emission reduction credits in a country or region with any
type of compliance mechanism.

Other Forms of Environmental Credit

The Project has not sought any other type of environmental credit and does not anticipate doing so
in the future.

Additional Information Relevant to the Project

Leakage Management
Appropriate production and water table data from the Project Area will be collected, analysed and
compiled upon each verification event to estimate activity shifting and ecological leakage.

Any actual or potential threat of leakage will be mitigated by the RER Carbon Project by taking active
steps to reduce and remove the threat of leakage from the any displacement of planned
deforestation activities and ecological leakage (see § 4.3). APRIL, along with RER Project partners
have been engaging the government of Indonesia, as well as key industry players, to assist with a
systemic change in industrial land-use for Acacia plantations across the country and to modify land-
use practices to ensure greater sustainability. APRIL itself as plantation owner and operator has
taken steps to limit the expansion and increase the sustainability of its own plantations in
peatlands and refrain from harvesting natural forest areas.

Commercially Sensitive Information

The following is a non-exclusive list of information that the Project has deemed commercially
sensitive and is not publicly available but will be made available to the auditor during validation and
verification. The list includes any:

• Financial Projections and Analysis related to long term Project implementation

• Digital Shape Files of project area, proxy areas and any other GIS shape files used to
delineate any areas in or around or impacting the Project
• Classified Satellite Images purchased or otherwise acquired and then processed for any
Project Purpose
• Original Biomass Inventories including filed notes, hardcopies, digital copies, etc.

Page 59 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

• Original Community and Social Surveys including filed notes, hardcopies, digital copies, etc.
• Legal Agreements between implementing partners, technical partners, communities,
government
• Project Models used to generate carbon emission reductions and removals, including any
relevant field data, remote sensing data, etc.
• Project Budgets and Workplans
• Project methods and SOPs
• RER Organization Chart 2021

Sustainable Development
The Government of Indonesia (GOI) has made a number of international commitments to
sustainable development and reduction of GHG emissions.

2015 UN Sustainable Development Goals

GOI has made commitments under the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) program to
address climate change issues by reducing GHG emissions in forest landscapes against a 2015
business as usual (BAU) scenario. This includes decreasing deforestation and protection of
peatlands19 under Goal 13 and Goal 15. More Specifically,

GOI SDG Goal 13 -Climate Action notes that deforestation contributed to 30% of GOI emissions and
indicates a desire to reduce BAU emissions 20.

GOI indicates a Policy Direction for 2020-2030 in regard to Forest, Land and Peat that would see a
“returning the function of the ecosystem and environmental services of forestry, maintaining and
increasing land cover.”21

This is coupled with:

SDG Goal 15 – Life on Land – Forest Protection which has as its goal of

a. preventing a higher rate of forest degradation and

b. incorporating private and public participation in conservation programmes.
The GOI indicated two policy directions in SDG Goal 15 for 2020-2024 and 2025-2030. Both
included a goal of “decreasing Deforestation” and “continuing the peat protection policy.”

The RER-CP is not a formal part of the Indonesian SDGs in the sense that the Project is not directly
incorporated into the SDG programme and that none of the results from the Project will be reported
in relation to the hopeful success of the GOI goals. Nonetheless, in an informal way, the RER Project
in its own actions is supportive of the two SDGs. The activity of avoiding planned deforestation and
of wetlands restoration are well aligned with the GOI SDGs.

Page 60 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The Project supports Goal 13 in its Project Activity by the blocking of the canals that assist with
rewetting the peat landscape. Further, the overall act of avoiding planned deforestation supports
the goal of increasing forest cover as the Project’s Activity allows the in situ forest to naturally
regrow. The limited reforestation and revegetation by the Project also assists with maintaining and
increasing forest cover.

The Project also informally supports Goal 15 through avoiding deforestation that would have
otherwise occurred in the Project’s baseline scenario while at the same time protecting a large
peatland area from the loss of much of the peatland landscape that would have happened under
the same baseline scenario.

Although the RER Project does undertake monitoring of its activities, none of the Project’s
monitoring is directly linked to the GOI SDG programme, and there are neither any requirements to
monitor and report to the SDG programme, nor are there any plans to report the activity to the GOI
SDG programme.

The GOI and the RER Project have not had any direct discussions or consultations regarding the
SDGs, and the Project’s contribution to them is only informal.

2015 Nationally Determined Contributions under Paris Agreement

The GOI adheres to the Paris agreement, and it has been ratified by Act No. 16/2016. The GOI
Submitted its first NDCs in November of 2016, and its Updated NDCs in July of 2021. Further, and
pursuant to Decision 1/CP.23 paragraph 10-11 and Annex II on Talanoa Dialogue and the Guidance
for Parties by COP Presidencies (27 March 2018), the Government of the Republic of Indonesia
committed to a 29% reduction of national GHG emission by 2030, with 17.2% coming from the
Forestry sector22. The only aspect included as part of the Private Sector implementation in the
Talonoa Dialogue that was specifically mentioned was the “Fire-Free Village Program,” which has
been implemented in the Kampar Peninsula.

RER-CP’s Contributions

The RER Carbon Project activities support the GOI’s NDCs. Informally at this stage, the RER Project
may contribute a portion of the Project’s GHG reductions and removals to the NDC goals of
Indonesia, that is GHG emission reduction of 17.2% from the forestry sector. The details of that
contribution are continuing to be developed. No formal agreement has been reached to date;
however, discussions are ongoing. The Project is committed to avoiding any double counting so that
any emission reductions that the Project achieves, and would be claimed by the GOI, would not
result in tradeable VCU credits. Further, any GHG reductions or removals that were issued as VCUs
would be potentially subject to corresponding adjustments as contemplated by Article 6 of the Paris
Agreement. As Art. 6 rules continue to be developed in the ongoing SBSTA and COP negotiations, it
remains unclear as to precisely how the accounting will be conducted. Irrespective of the outcomes,
RER will adhere to any agreed-upon rules and will not engage in any double counting.

Page 61 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The Project’s monitoring, reporting and verification program provides accurate science-based
information’s systems that can be used to assess contributions to GOI NDCs. Currently, there are no
formal requirements that establish how the Project will monitor or report its emission reductions to
the GOI. It is anticipated that the VCS Verification Reports of the Project will be provided to the
relevant divisions within the Ministry of Forestry (i.e. Director General of Climate change and the
senior minister in MoEF). Details regarding this exchange of information will be developed, and the
Project will adhere to any legal requirements and will avoid any double counting.

Regarding the Fire Free Village Program, the RER Project is not involved in any formal monitoring or
reporting of the programme to the GOI. In the event that formal monitoring and reporting
requirements are implemented, the Project will follow these.

The GOI and the RER Project have only had one formal consultation regarding the NDC issues, on
14 January 2021. Additional meetings are anticipated in the near future.

Further Information
None

Page 62 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

2 SAFEGUARDS23
No Net Harm
The RER-Carbon Project (Project) does not expect any negative environmental impacts. Because the
Project Activity prevents the conversion of degraded natural forest to industrial Acacia plantation
and assists with some rewetting of the landscape, there are no changes to the environment other
than naturally occurring forest growth and the limited rehydration of approximately seven per cent
of the landscape by the blocking of legacy canals. The Project will have positive outcomes for both
climate change mitigation through carbon storage and the prevention of oxidation of the peat soils
that would have otherwise occurred in the baseline scenario. Further, there will be positive impacts
on biodiversity conservation through the preservation of critical habitats of the endemic and
endangered flora and fauna. The Project is unable to identify any potential negative environment
and socio-economic impact.

The Project aims to provide positive environmental, social, and biodiversity benefits. The Project
Proponents do not expect any negative socio-economic impacts. Community-focused non-carbon
Project Activities are aimed at increasing economic growth in the area surrounding the Project Area.
Substantial local stakeholder consultations have taken place, and ongoing community outreach is
in place. Importantly the Project has a robust Grievance Resolution Procedure that is part of a third-
party certified grievance redress mechanism under the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest
Certification (PEFC) that can assist and resolve any complaints or comments from the community.
Preservation of the forest in the Project Area will not only improve local communities by the
preservation of local ecosystem services, but it will also help strengthen the biodiversity and the
health of forest-dwelling species-in and around the Kampar Peninsula.

The only potential negative impact that the Project has identified is concerning the objective risks to
worker’s safety while they work in the RER Project area. This would include encountering
occupational and safety hazards during ranger patrols, during fire suppression related activities and
any field-based conservation activity (i.e., canal maintenance and dam construction, restoration
and replanting activity, etc.). These activities include a variety of occupational hazards and risks to
the workers as the tropical peat forest field environment presents a variety of natural hazards that
could lead to physical injuries.

Page 63 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Local Stakeholder Consultation

Overview of Pre-Project Consultations and Socio-Economic Study

Demographics & Local Socioeconomic Context

Province of Riau
In 2019, the Province of Riau had a total land area of 87,023.66 km 2. Of that, the Kabupaten of
Pelalawan, where the Project is located, has a total land area of 12,758.45 km2.24 The population of
Riau Province is 6,971,745 in 2019, up from 5,574,928 in 2010, with a current population density
of 884.5 per km2. Life expectancy for men in Riau Province is 69.62 years, while for women, it is
73.43 years25. Riau is considered a very ethnically diverse province. As of 2015, the ethnic groups
in Riau consist of Malays (37.74%), Javanese (25.05%), Minangkabau (11.26%), Batak (7.31%),
Banjar (3.78%), Chinese (3.72%), and Bugis (2.27%)26.

There are 10 regencies (Kabupaten) in the province and two autonomous cities (Kota), the
provincial capital is Pekanbaru and has a population of 1,121,562 in 2019.

The Province of Riau is located in the central part of Sumatra. Riau is directly adjacent to North
Sumatra and the Straits of Malacca in the north, Jambi to the south, West Sumatra to the west, and
the Riau Islands in the east. The province shares maritime borders with Singapore and Malaysia.

In general, the geography of Riau consists of mountains, lowlands, and islands. The mountain area
lies in the western part, namely the Bukit Barisan Mountains, near the border of West Sumatra. The
elevation decreases towards the east, with most of the central and eastern parts of the Province
covered with low elevation peat swamp forests (lowlands). Off the eastern coast lies the Strait of
Malacca, where several islands lie. The Project area lies in the eastern lowlands and along the
eastern coastline.

The Province is rich in natural resources, particularly fossil fuels (oil & gas), rubber, oil palm, and
fibre plantations. However, extensive past exploitation of the forest (logging, plantation forestry and
conversion to oil palm plantations) has led to a substantial decline in forest cover. The Province as
of 2015 was estimated to have about 1.67 million ha of natural forest cover remaining or 18.5% of
landcover, while plantation forest covered about 3.58 million ha or 41.8% of landcover 27. Fires
related to community agriculture and small-holder plantation development have contributed to
severe haze over the Province and trans-boundary haze affecting countries and cities to the east,
such as Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Kabupaten Pelalawan and the Area Surrounding the Project

The whole landscape of RER is neighbour to nine nearby villages: Petodaan, Kuala Panduk, Teluk
Binjai, Teluk Meranti, Pulau Muda, Segamai, Gambut Mutiara, Labuhan Bilik, and Serapung. All
villages are situated in the southern part of RER, along the Kampar River, except Serapung Village
which is located on an island off the east coast of the peninsula. The combined population of those

Page 64 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

villages is 17,602 people, with the number of households per village ranging from 139 to 1,345.
The RER-Project Area falls within Pulau Muda, Teluk Meranti, Teluk Binjai, Petodaan and Kuala
Panduk village's administration.

Map 13- Community activity near the Project Area

The community in the landscape practices a mixed economy (ekonomi rames), where they combine
several livelihood activities to fulfil their basic needs. They follow the market trends and commodity
prices when they decide to choose livelihood activities. Livelihood activities are based on natural
resources, and it can be grouped into four main categories: agriculture (e.g. rice & maze), plantation
(e.g. sago, oil palm and rubber), fishery, and logging. Each village has its featured commodities, but
the most common commodity is oil palm, coconut and rubber.

The infrastructure in the landscape is relatively weak. The road conditions in all villages are mostly
unpaved, with only short sections of the road that are paved with cement. Elementary education
facilities (SD, SMP, Madrasah) are available in all villages, but secondary education (SMA) is only
available in Teluk Meranti Village. If the community aims to continue their education to university,
they usually go to Pekanbaru, the capital city of Riau Province. All villages do not receive electricity
from the government, except Teluk Meranti that receives it from 5 pm to 7 am every day. Health
facilities (Puskesmas, Pustu, or Posyandu) are available in all villages in various conditions and
quality.

Page 65 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Pre-Project Consultations and Socio-Economic Study

Since Project inception, stakeholder input has been an important goal of the Project Proponent. The
RER Project undertook several studies to identify local stakeholders, identify any legal access or
customary use access rights and potential conflicts, and to review and analyse socio-economic and
cultural diversity among stakeholders. These studies are included in Appendices 3a-d. The RER
Project does not believe that the composition of local communities has significantly altered since
the Project Start Date nor does it anticipate any changes to the composition as a result of the
Project's activities; both those that generate carbon off-sets and those that do not.

Stakeholder meetings and focus group discussions with the community began before the official
project start date, and the opportunity for community input continues to this day through RER's
dedicated Community Relations team.

The pre-project socialisation efforts were divided into four (4) differently focused meetings (1-4) and
one (1) large scale socio-economic study:

• Focus Group Discussions in 5 Villages

• Stakeholder Discussions explaining the RER project concept
• Workshops for Management Synergies
• Carbon Focused meeting(s)
• Social and institutional culture study
All of the above activities were conducted under the CCB principles and guidelines of Free, Prior
Informed Consent (FPIC).

These meetings and social assessment efforts are described in the tables below.

No. Meeting Content of Meeting Participants

1 Focus Group Presentation and Q&A about the use and Government Organisations
Discussions (FGD) land rights claims of forest resources. (forestry-related institutions)
5 neighbouring villages, sub-
districts, districts: Teluk
Meranti Village, Teluk Binjai
Village, Kuala Panduk
Village, Petodaan Village and
Serapung Village
Production Forest
Management Unit (KPHP) of
Tasik Besar Serkap
NGO’s i.e. Mitra Insani
Foundation & Bidara

Page 66 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

2 Stakeholder Explanation of the RER- Restoration Government Organisations

coordination programme; (forestry-related institutions)
(dates of meetings Aims and objectives of the restoration 5 neighbouring villages, sub-
stated below) activities. districts, districts: Teluk
Impacts of restoration activities on social, Meranti Village, Teluk Binjai
economic, and cultural aspects. Village, Kuala Panduk
Location of RER-CP area in the Kampar Village, Petodaan Village and
Peninsula peatland landscape. Serapung Village
The terms agreed upon by the community
were then compiled into a conceptual
document on the participatory management
plan model for RER-CP and community
restoration areas.

3 Workshop on plan This workshop is conducted to seek RER PT. GCN,

sharing and towards resolution of cases of overlapping land Segamai LPHD,
management between RER PT. GCN and Segamai Village Serapung LPHD,
synergy: KPHP Tasik Forests and to synergise the parties in Mitra Insani Foundation,
Besar Serkap Riau supporting the preservation of peatlands in Project Consultants, and
Ecosystem the Kampar Peninsula. KPHP Tasik Besar Serkap28
Restoration
conducted on May
25, 2015, at the
KPHP office.
4 Carbon meeting What will GCN and RER stand to gain in RER:
conducted on March managing the area? Inra Gunawan
3, 2016 At present, RER has not traded carbon. Mr. Wawan
The carbon emission reduction (carbon) will Mr. Iqbal
be calculated. Mr. Eli, Frederik
It needs to be highlighted: What is the
purpose and purpose of the government Project Consultants:
issuing a restoration permit, what is the Kusworo
purpose of the company having an ER Adam Aziz
permit and the source of its money? Imam Suyudi
APRIL has committed to 1ha for 1ha Asra D
conservation commitment. Persada, Jamri
To preserve the Kampar peat landscape so
that it can extend HTI activities.
RE funding source from HTI.
Table 25- Overview of socialisation efforts

Page 67 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Social and institutional culture study around the ecosystem restoration area of Semenanjung
Kampar, Riau Province
Content of Study Participants
Understanding of the socio- 9 villages studied, 8 villages in the Teluk Meranti subdistrict, and 1
economic and cultural village (Serapung) in the Kuala Kampar sub-district. The villages are as
aspects of the community follows:
related to their relationship 1. Petodak Village
with the forest. 2. Kuala Panduk village
3. Teluk Binjai Village
4. Desa Teluk Meranti
5. Pulau Muda Village
6. Segamai Village
7. Desa Gambut Mutiara
8. Labuan Bilik Village
9. Serapung Village
June to August 2015 in the Pelalawan Regency, Riau. 29
Table 26- Social and institutional culture study

Map 14- Map of villages in RER Kampar Peninsula

Pre Project-Consultations in the Communities

The Project has no communities that are located within the actual Project Area; however, there are
nine (9) recognised villages and communities that are nearby to the Project. See Map 14. Before
initiation of the Project, Stakeholder Consultations and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) took place
to socialise the RER project, mostly in Q1 and Q2 of 2016. These consultations and FGDs were
meant to allow communities to evaluate the potential impacts of the Project and raise concerns

Page 68 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

about potential negative impacts. All of the discussion took place in a culturally appropriate manner.
They were conducted in the local language (Bahasa Indonesia), at 5 of the 9 village locations. Some
meetings were held with members of the community and others with their local religious and
political leaders. All of the stakeholder discussions and FGDs were held prior to the design of the
Project and the drafting of the VCS-PD. Input that was received from the consultations and FGDs
was considered and where possible input was integrated into the overall design and project
implementation.

Page 69 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0
Summary of Focus Group Discussions in Teluk Meranti Village
No Date of Participants’ Issues Reviewed & Findings Resolution & Conclusion
Meeting Information
1 17/02/ 20 Persons Recruitment of workers in restoration. RER and APRIL have continued to hire workers for the RER project for the restoration
2016 - comprised of activites.
Fishermen and RER employs 112 people on Kampar Peninsula. 110 are from Riau, while 55 persons
Fish Groups are from the Carbon Project villages. 9 are employees, 10 are Security Rangers, 31 are
Labor Supply (restoration, canal blocking, patrols), and 5 are Service Staff at Eco-
Camp.
2 18/02/ 14 Fishermen There was a debate among the FGD participants There was much confusion by villagers in 2016 about the difference between RER and
2016 and farmer where the men connected the Riau Ecosystem RAPP plantation management. RAPP informs on the annual work plan to harvest trees
groups Restoration with RAPP were protested by the in the plantation, but the villagers could not understand why RER was not harvesting
women who wished to focus on forest management trees.
planning.
3 27/02/ 10 Persons, The FGD participants questioned the extraction of Communities are informed that they have access to the RER area for fishing and Non-
2016 Comprised of wood & fish and the rules for entering the RER timber forest product (NTFP) collection. They are monitored, warned to ensure legal
Fishermen and area. compliance but not prohibited from entry. If illegal activities are occurring, RER
women's groups requests law enforcement assistance from BBKSDA or Police. See below at § 2.2.2.1
for details about the how communities are allowed access to the Project Area for
collecting NTFP in a sustainable manner.
4 27/04/ 68 persons. The community hopes that the allocation of Communication systems and protocols with fishermen in the Serkap River have been
2016 Attended by Teluk resources in the area would be fair, namely they established.
Meranti sub- have a need for wood and fishing. RER does not RER is now entering the 3rd Agreement with 20 Serkap river fisherman.
district head and prohibit this, but it will be managed together so that Communication channels with fishermen in the Serkap River are well established and
village it is sustainability maintained. running smoothly.
government The community hopes that RER provides RER and APRIL have continued to hire workers for the RER project.
officials. employment opportunities to local communities to As noted, RER employs 112 people on Kampar Peninsula. 110 are from Riau, while 55
alleviate the lack of employment. persons are from the Carbon Project villages. 9 are employees, 10 are Security
Rangers, 31 are Labour Supply (restoration, canal blocking, patrols), and 5 are Service
Staff at Eco-Camp.
The community understood the importance of RER Community Relations program has implemented 21 programs since 2015 and it is
communication between the community and RER during these programs that issues are identified and dealt with.
and APRIL so that they can work together.
Key communication issues are about RER area & RER Community Relations program has implemented 21 programs since 2015 and it is
licensing issues. during these programs that issues are identified and dealt with. In addition, if legal
issues arise (i.e. wildlife poaching) RER has conducted socialization meetings in
collaboration with BBKSDA.
Table 27- Teluk Meranti Village FGDs

Page 70 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0
Summary of Focus Group Discussions in Teluk Binjai Village
No Date of Participants’ Issues Reviewed & Findings Resolutions and Conclusions
Meeting Information
1 27/02/ 9 Persons The community acknowledged that activities related to the Fisherman continue to have acccess to the Project Area. Agreements have
2016 RER forest did not impact them much except for a few been established to ensure fishing methods are not destructive. RER has
fishermen who caught fish in the Turip River. provided fisherman with nets, boat engines and reconstructed fishing huts.
There should be no prohibition on fishing in the RER area, The formal Agreement prohibits burning, use of poison or electric shock to
good solutions, and land without burning. catch fish. This is being complied and fish catches are increasing annually.
2 19/03 10 Persons Forest as a source of local pride. The community felt that they The community has continued use of the RER forest within the limits of the
/2016 have no identity if it does not have a forest. The land around law.
the village is still being planted with natural saplings.
3 16/04/ 10 Persons Participants refused to have supervision because some of the RER will continue to monitor access and post warning signs on what activities
2016 villagers in Teluk Binjai were timber collectors and if are not allowed. Communities are advised that harvesting wood is prohibited
monitoring were conducted, the villagers felt that livelihoods by Indonesian law in the RER Project Area.
would be lost.
Some forest plants are still used on certain occasions and Access to the RER Project area to collect NTFP is not restricted, only
are still consumed by the community. monitored, and the collection of such plants is allowed. See below at § 2.2.2.1
for details about the how communities are allowed access to the Project Area for
collecting NTFP in a sustainable manner.
4 27/04/ 43 Persons. RER firmly explained that as a non-profit-based program RER N/A
2016 Attended by does not seek profit because RER is not a palm, mining, or
the village HTI company seeking profit. Therefore, community
head of Teluk involvement in restoration activities is a shared responsibility
Binjai, Mursi and some processes must be followed.
Evendi, and The public more often expressed various disappointments RER and APRIL have continued to hire workers for the RER project.
villagers with the previous company, such as the plantation company As noted above. RER employs 112 people on Kampar Peninsula. 110 are from
PT. RAPP. However, there were statements from the Riau, while 55 persons are from the Carbon Project villages. 9 are employees,
community that they would support activities to restore the 10 are Security Rangers, 31 are Labor Supply (restoration, canal blocking,
forests that would be carried out by RER provided they were patrols), and 5 are Service Staff at Eco-Camp.
involved in these activities, including getting job
opportunities.
Table 28- Teluk Binjai Village FGDs

Page 71 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0
Summary of Focus Group Discussions in Kuala Panduk Village
No Date of Participants’ Issues Reviewed & Findings Resolution & Conclusion
Meeting Information
1 19/02/ 11 - The FGD participants suggested planting Non-Timber Forest Products RER/APRIL isnot opposed to this type of activity, however it is also
2016 Comprised of (NTFP) in the yard of the house. worth noting that it has no impact on the Project Area itself. The
Fishermen villages are not known to have initiated any such activity to date. The
Group Project would allow the collection of such seedlings or seeds for this
activity. See below at §2.2.2.1.
2 29/02/ 18 Comprised There was a question of whether the FGD results will be realised because RER has not made any promises to Kuala Panduk. RER Community
2016 of Fishermen so far, the community has always been sacrificed in the name of research. Relations program has included annual Ramadhan celebration,
and Farmers providing roofing material for fisherman's huts on Kutup River, and
Group support for Independence Day sports events.
3 28/04/ 42 Persons There was a concern that RAPP (APRIL HTI operations) was not interested RER explained to the people of Kuala Panduk Village that they were
2016 in protecting the forest, but only in making material for paper production. not a HTI or oil palm company, but restoration company that built
forests. Therefore, they are not looking for profit. RER discusses
issues as they arise with village leaders.
TBOT and employment opportunity problems for fishermen in the Kutub RER on Kampar Peninsula employs 112 people as employees,
River located in the RER area, however, TBOT is not promising anything contract Security Rangers or Labor Supply. 55 are from the Carbon
due to the location of PT. TBOT. Project area villages.
Table 29- Kuala Panduk Village FGDs

Page 72 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0
Summary of Focus Group Discussions in Petodak Village
No Date of Participants’ Issues Reviewed & Findings Resolution & Conclusion
Meeting Information
1 28/02/ 11 Petodak Village does not have land to plant NTFPs and wood Petodak has total 2,206 ha of APRIL/JV concession land allocated for receiving
2016 Comprised because it has been sold to migrants while the land across Livelihood payments for use as Acacia fiber plantation (460 ha), can utilize to
of Fishermen the Kampar river is included in the company's conservation harvest NTFP's (1,166 ha), or have claimed (580 ha). RER concession (TBOT/GAN)
and Farmers area. cannot allocate land for Livelihood under the ER license, but residents are welcome
Group to legally harvest NTFP's.
2 28/04/ 86 Persons. RER also stated firmly to the people of Petodak Village that The issue of the status of RER is repeated and pointed out whenever the issue
2016 Attended by they were not an HTI or oil palm company, but restoration arrises at community meetings to contiue to be clear that RER is in the business of
Chairman of company that regenerates and protects forests. Therefore, protecting the forest and is not HTI or oil palm.
BPD they are not looking for profit.
Petodaan, Chairman of Petodak, Lukman Hakim, using the local N/A`
Lukman language, stated that what came was not a company that
Hakim would cut down forests or plant Acacia, let alone palm oil, but
to develop forests. Therefore, in order not to expect to ask for
help even if there is a need for labour, Petodak residents are
expected to accept the terms.
The village administration through the village head does not N/A
question the existence of restoration.
Assistance is provided as a reward for land cultivation without The APRIL Fire Free Village Program was initiated in 2015 and involves 5 initiatives
burning. Until the assistance of agricultural equipment has within each village. Petodaan was one of 9 villages to participate and identified 409
been received by the Village Petodak. The village head will ha of village land remain fire free. Petodaan was successful in preventing fires in
receive monthly incentives. 2015 and the community received an 'in-kind' reward of Rp100,000,000 in the
form of community infrastructure project and 138 handtools for no-burn farming.
After 3 years, Petodaan has since graduated from the FFVP and is now considered a
fire resilient community.
Table 30- Petodak Village FGDs

Page 73 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0
Summary of Focus Group Discussions in Serapung Village
Date of Participants’
No Issues Reviewed & Findings Resolution & Conclusion
Meeting Information
1 25/03/ 11, Comprised of Provision of tree seedlings to be planted in gardens in the village, RER/APRIL isnot opposed to this type of activity, however it is also worth
2016 Men's group asking permission from the government to take wood from the noting that it has no impact on the Project Area itself. The villages are not
forest to build houses, and areca nut (Areca catechu) or betel nut known to have initiated any such activity to date. The Project would allow the
plantations in the village. collection of such seedlings or seeds for this activity. See below at §2.2.2.1.
2 21/04/ 19, Comprised of Planting wood in the village forest, mushroom cultivation, and RER/APRIL isnot opposed to this type of activity, however it is also worth
2016 Women's group planting tamarind (Tamarindus indica) in the village. noting that it has no impact on the Project Area itself. The villages are not
known to have initiated any such activity to date. The Project would allow the
collection of such seedlings or seeds for this activity. See below at §2.2.2.1.
3 24/04/ 11 Blocking canals, asked permission from the forestry service to take Since 2011, Riau province recommended to MoEF to allocate 2,000 ha of Ex-PT
2016 Comprised of wood from the forest for community needs, improve technology to Alam Wana Sakti concession for Serapung Village Forest (+ 2,000 ha for
Community use the land, cultivate honeybees in the village, and take forest Segamai). The remainder (20K ha) has become PT GCN. Bureacratic delays at
Leaders Group fruits in a way that does not damage the forest. Provincial level caused the MoEF to designate the Village Forest in April 2017.
Six months later, unpermitted logging began in the Village Forest that was also
designated as a protected deep peat area.
4 30/04/ 57 Questions that arise from the community are still about the benefits Serapung village historical economy is based on wooden boat building. After
2016 of the existence of restoration for the village. depleting the forest on Serapung island, they began harvesting forests on
coastline of Kampar Peninsula, which have now become industrial fiber
plantations. 2017 allocation of 2,000 ha Village Forest did not come with the
right to harvest trees, but this was done illegally starting 6-months later.
Other questions are about differences in village forests and By regulation, it is the LPHD that has the right to manage the village forest.
restoration, and about who has more right to manage village
forests, i.e. Lembaga Pengelolaan Hutan Desa (LPHD the Village
Forest Management Agency) or the village government.
The question of the role of LPHD arises because the local political The MoEF designated the village forest in April 2017 due to repeated
situation between LPHD and the village head is not well bureacratic delays at the provincial level.
established. The village head considers the existence of LPHD
management illegitimate in the absence of a letter of recognition
from the governor.
LPHD considers their existence to be legitimate because there is a Correct.
decree from the Ministry of Forestry.
The role of LPHD in the future will be strategic but the institutional The LPHD now has legal responsibilities to comply with MoEF regulations for
arrangement and refinement is the right of the village and its long-term and annual forest planning, tax payments, organizational
citizens to determine. The functions and objectives of village forests development, etc. The initial driver of the Village Forests, Yayasan Mitra Insani,
and restoration are the same and are sourced from the MoEF’s has not fully supported the LPHD with this process.
decrees.

Page 74 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0
The reason why Serapung Village is being included in the target The illegal logging in Serapung Village Forest periodically returns and spreads
villages is because of the existence of the Serapung Village Forest into the adjacent Segamai Village Forest which is immediately adjacent to PT
which is geographically adjacent to the Segamai Village Forest and GCN. There are many 'factions' within both villages, therefore achieving clarity to
the restoration area boundary so that as a whole the landscape move forward is an on-going process.
needs to be involved in its management.
Table 31- Serapung Village FGDs

Page 75 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Non- Timber Forest Products Explanation

Local communities around the RER project area have always been allowed to collect non-timber forest
products (NTFP) and the RER Project guard posts and rangers have never prevented the access into the
forest. All access into the Project Area is done via one of only a handful of access points on waterways
and past the guard-posts where everyone who enters must register. There is no requirement to provide
advance notice of a community member's intention to access the Project Area. However, the guard
posts do maintain logs of all entries made. The daily ingress/egress logs are communicated by radio to
the RER field station (located just outside of the RER Project area.

All harvesting and collection of NTFP are undertaken in a traditional manner by local communities. No
commercial activity is undertaken in the area. All activity is small scale and undertaken by individuals,
pairs of individuals. The Main NTFP collected from the RER Project area are rattan, palm shoots, fish,
deadwood for smoking fish, pandan leaf collection, etc. (Additionally, communities would be free to
collect other NTFP such as seeds, seedlings, etc.) A practical barrier to any large-scale access that
could result in unsustainable harvesting, collection or access into the RER Project area is that only
small aluminium craft (i.e. 5 meters or so) with small outboard motors can navigate the overgrown
waterways. Larger craft are unable to access the RER Project Area. Collection of NTFP at any scale is
not realistic.

The RER Project, through monitoring, maintains a "watchful eye" on all access in order to monitor
practices that might be or become unsustainable. For example, early in the Project's history, RER and
APRIL were aware of fishing practices that appeared unsustainable, including destructive "local fishing
habits" that included the use of poisons, electricity, etc. To improve harvesting practices, RER and
APRIL helped establish a local fisherman's association that included fishermen from villages that
traditionally accessed the RER's waterways. Signed agreements between the fisherman and
RER/APRIL were established that limited fishing to more sustainable methods. The fisherman agreed
to refrain from the use of poisons, electricity, and other unsustainable methods. This agreement began
in 2016 and continues to today. The fisherman (about 20+ active fisherman) report that the waterways
are clean, and the quality of their catches have improved. Local species that once appeared to be
absent have returned. A copy of the fisherman's agreement is included.

Another example of the RER project working to maintain sustainable NTFP activities includes an
agreement with local communities, the Riau Conservation Dept. and RER to refrain from the collection
of Songbirds. At the beginning of the Project, in 2016 and until 2019, communities were allowed to
collect songbirds, but the practice was becoming widespread, and RER/APRIL feared that the impacts
on the local bird population was increasing to unsustainable levels. Since the October 2019 agreement
to cease songbird collection, the RER guard posts have not encountered any songbird collection in RER.

RER's ongoing monitoring of access to the concession also looks for poaching activity, but none has
been detected.

Page 76 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The RER monitoring programme and ongoing engagement with local communities ensures the
continued right of access to the RER Project Area for the harvesting and collection of NTFPs. It also
ensures, as has been demonstrated in the past, that unsustainable practices can be identified and
addressed with appropriate measures.

Summary of Outcomes
One important outcome of the FGD activities is the compilation of the “Conditional Acceptance Terms”
from the community. It is an indicator that the community understands the existence and activities of
the RER-Carbon Project. In addition, it also indicates that the community is in agreement with
opportunities for RER. However, there are still requirements from the community that are requested to
be fulfilled by RER and APRIL. The Conditional Acceptance Terms are in table 32.

No. Conditional Acceptance Terms

1 Agree that forest is to be restored if it does not eliminate community rights (fishing, timber needs,
and hunting).
2 Agree because the location of the Project is far from villages and dependence of the forest has
been reduced.
3 Agree because much of the forests are damaged, and the forest is a sense of pride for the Malay
people.
4 Agree that RER will benefit the community with labour and employment contracts.
5 Agree to preserve nature and existing wild canals must be closed.
6 Agree, but there must be openness about boundaries and licensing.
7 Agree with the terms if there are no more problems with limits.
8 Agree that GCN operates if there is a settlement from land issues on either side of the Puskopol
canal which have often been sued by the Pulau Muda Village community.
9 Overlapping land claims must be resolved by surrendering the boundary land to the Segamai
Village Forest30.
10 Agree to a positive restoration area if it is beneficial for forest sustainability and the community's
economy. This is because the residents of Teluk Meranti Village have been traumatised by RAPP.
Damage to kinship due to the pros and cons influence of RAPP made by people from outside the
Meranti Bay, including NGOs.
11 Agree, but there must be help to overcome the issue of land without burning.
12 Agree because of that there should be a GCN branch office at Teluk Meranti sub-district area so
that people can easily coordinate.
13 Agree if it the Project conducts forest preservation.
Table 32- Conditional Acceptance Terms

During the consultation process, the possible impacts that the Project might have on an individual or to
collective actors in terms of economics, social, and biodiversity aspects were discussed and reviewed,
as can be seen from the above summary table

The details and results of the entire socialisation process can be found in "Sosialisasi Pengelolaan
Kawasan" attached as a part of Appendix 3b.

Page 77 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Inclusion of Stakeholders Concerns

As part of the project design process, the RER Project, conducted the above-described meetings,
workshops, stakeholder consultations and FGDs to address the concerns of the community groups. As
a result of the communities’ agreements and inputs that were taken into consideration, a variety of the
non-carbon generating activities were established, in part to address those requests and those brought
up during the stakeholder engagement process.

1) Restore the Forest – RER would undertake a native species nursery and revegetation program in
the most degraded areas of RER to support the preservation of the forests. Local labour supports
this activity.
2) Canal blocking – RER would block the old legacy canals to rewet the landscape in areas that have
canals in place from the times of illegal logging. Local labour supports this activity.
3) No-Burn efforts in the village with initial incentives – the Fire Free Village Programme” was based
on a written agreements with villages to not employ burning techniques to clear areas for
agriculture or small-scale plantation activity in exchange for agreed-upon incentives. The written
agreements are available to the auditors and indicate that incentives are financial development
awards of between 50,000,000 IDR and 100,000,000 IDR (aprox. $3,550 USD –$7,100 USD). The
amounts will be provided not as cash but in terms of the value of a development program or activity.
4) No-burn vegetable gardens –the program was established to assist villagers in learning no-burn
cultivation techniques for small scale vegetable garden efforts and as a way to increase income for
families.
5) No elimination of community access to the forests, i.e. no-one prevented from entering the forest.
6) Active fishing groups and coordination – Promotion of sustainable fishing activities and support to
the local fishing communities.
7) Songbird collection and medicinal plants still collected – No policing or barring of such practices,
only monitoring from a sustainability perspective.
8) Hutan Madu program – The establishment of a forest honey cooperative to support the branding
and sale of locally sourced forest honey.
9) Jobs provided to the villagers – RER and APRIL continue to provide job opportunities to the local
communities both in RER and in the surrounding APRIL concessions.

Ongoing Communications with Communities

APRIL and the RER-Carbon Project have a robust communication mechanism in place with the local
communities. RER has dedicated community communication teams and a dedicated Community
Relations Department. Regular "town hall" style meetings are held every month. This allows an ongoing
connection with community members, village leaders, religious leaders, local NGOs', women's groups,
school groups, teachers, and health professionals. These groups are variously distributed throughout
the nine villages as not all villages have the same groups and results in a varying level of stakeholder
participation. Nonetheless, RER maintains regular communications with all of the villages through the
"town hall" meetings and through its company representatives that are actively engaged in WhatsApp

Page 78 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

groups with the villages they are assigned to. The town hall meetings are used to provide updates on
RER project activity, implementation, benefits to the local stakeholders as well as any appropriate legal
related issues. The meetings could also be used to discuss project risks and costs.

The RER Project also reports on implementation issues, costs, community benefits, legal issues and
risks through the RER website (https://www.rekoforest.org/) and through the published annual reports
that are also available on the website. It is anticipated that the RER-Carbon Project will eventually
publish the VCS-PD on the website as well.

As part of the ongoing outreach, the Project maintains, in addition to village specific WhatsApp group
chats mentioned above, the following social media accounts to further engage stakeholders:

https://www.facebook.com/officialRER

https://twitter.com/RER_official

https://www.instagram.com/RER_Riau/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCotuN6jbrJqxHnoIFh0WByw

Communicating Relevant Laws and Regulations Covering Workers’ Rights

Labour law and the associated rights of workers are governed by Indonesian laws and regulations at
the national or federal level. The following laws and regulations apply specifically to workers rights in
Indonesia.

No. Name of Labour Law (i.e., Agreement/Treaty, Law & Regulation)

1 Law No. 80/1957 on Ratification of International Labour Organisation Convention of Equal
Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value
2 Law No. 21/1999 on Ratification of International Labour Organisation Convention on
Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation
3 Law No. 1/1970 on Work Safety
4 Law No. 3/1992 on Labour Social Security
5 Law No. 21/2000 on Labour Union
6 Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower
7 Law No. 2/2004 on Industrial Relations Dispute
8 Law No. 40/2004 on National Social Security System
9 Government Regulation 8/1981 on Wage Protection
10 Government Regulation 14/1993 on Worker Social Security Program
11 Government Regulation No. 50/2012 on Occupational Safety and Health Management
System Application
Table 33- Relevant las & regulations covering workers' rights

The RER Project and APRIL, as noted in §1.14 above, adheres to a broad range of Indonesian legal
requirements, including relating to the labour sector. APRIL’s Human Resources teams, in hiring all
employees on the Kampar peninsula, follow a variety of Indonesian labour laws that relate to workers
rights. These laws are outlined in §1.14 and cover issues ranging from occupational & worker safety,
labour unions, social security, discrimination and equal rights issues, wage protection, etc.

Page 79 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Each employee at the RER Project is hired through APRIL’s human resource team and has a written
contract that clearly and in writing sets forth the parties’ contractual arrangements. Upon being hired,
each new employee is provided orientation as to expectations, requirements, and workers' rights in the
APRIL group. Each individual is provided with a copy of the company Employee manual that outlines all
major issues regarding employment. This includes communicating information about employee rights,
anti-discrimination, timeliness of pay, HR procedures, insurance benefits, etc. As noted in the employee
handbook, individual workers have the contact details for Human resources. They can contact them
directly with any questions related to employment issues and the rights of employees.

Additionally, RER employees can freely associate and join the local labour union known as [SP Kahut
RAPP Fiber (Forestry and Wood Labor Union RAPP Fiber). This union operates in Kerinci and is available
to all employees hired under the APRIL FiberOne group, of which RER is a part of.

Occupational health and safety issues are communicated to all employees via work training programs
and safety training. This is especially true of employees that operate not in an office setting but the
field. APRIL/RER has regular training that includes reviewing safety issues while in the field, including
first aid, use of safety equipment (i.e. life jackets, hard hats, etc.) and safety procedures. Occupational
Safety and worker safety training is regularly reviewed and is certified as part of the PEFC and IFCC
certification process (see also §2.5.3). Pre-operation safety briefings are also regularly used before
employee’s undertaking field operations.

Communications Regarding Validation & Verification

The RER-Project prior to the validation and verification of the project undertook several steps to
communicate the process of the VCS audit to the local communities.

Pre-Validation Meetings

Upon completing the PD's drafting, the RER Project initiated a socialisation campaign in the 5
neighbouring villages and sub-districts. These meetings took place in January and February of 2021.
An initial meeting was held that presented a slide show about climate change and the RER Project. The
RER community relations teams also briefed the villages and sub-districts about the upcoming
validation and verification process. It was explained that the VCS project was required to undergo third-
party certification and that an auditor or group of auditors would be visiting the area and the project to
ensure that the project described in the PD was reflected on the ground. For each of the villages and
sub-districts, a follow-up meeting was held three to four weeks later so that the communities would
have an opportunity to consider the presentation and raise any concerns and questions at the follow -up
meetings.

One week before initiating the validation and verification field site visit, in March of 2021, a further
meeting was held in Telok Meranti with representatives from the surrounding villages and subdistricts
to inform them of the upcoming audit further. The meetings specifically addressed the validation and

Page 80 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

verification audit. A discussion about the audit process was held so that it was clear that the carbon
credits had to be certified by a third party to make sure that they were “real.” including what aspects
the RER Project the auditor and or audit team would review operations in Kerinci and the field (i.e.
nursery, eco-camp, forest, etc.) and the communities.

Meetings During Validation & Verification

During the filed-site visit by the auditor in March 2021, two meetings were held in Telok Meranti with
community representatives, the RER team and the auditor. One meeting was with the local Sub-District
leader (the equivalent of a mayor), and the other was with about 20 plus community members made
up of both men and women. At both meetings, the auditor described his role and then discussed
various aspects of the Project, including but not limited to knowledge of the RER Project, the
relationship between the communities and APRIL, Project Activities, and how the audit process worked.
At each meeting, the auditor invited and responded to questions and comments posed by the
community members.

Environmental Impacts
The Project has not undertaken any formal environmental impact assessments for the above-described
project activity. The reason no formal environmental impact assessments have occurred is that there
are no anticipated negative environmental impacts associated with the retention of the natural forest.
By retaining and protecting the existing forest and managing ecological functions and enhancement,
the Project will protect or enhance aspects of biodiversity, water quality and other ecosystem services.

Further, the only changes that will be made to the Project Area will be to:

1. replant and revegetate highly degraded areas with native vegetation only, and without the use
of fertilizers (see §1.11.3.1 above)
2. block the legacy canals with hand-built dams made primarily out of natural material, i.e. locally
acquired gravel and aggregate, sod, etc and to a limited extent recycled materials (see
§1.11.2.3 above)
3. Introduction of monitoring equipment (i.e. subsidence poles, dipwells, automatic level loggers,
and the very small amount of supporting infrastructure required for those instruments)
The above activities do not have any foreseeable negative environmental or scoio-economic impacts
that would warrant a formal environmental impact assessment.

Public Comments
Project entered the VCS-Pipeline on or about 13 January 2021 and was assigned the VCS-Project No.
2403. The 30-day public comment period ended on 13 February 2021. No public comments were
received.

AFOLU-Specific Safeguards

Page 81 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The socialisation of the Project and the VCS PD

A Summary of the RER-Carbon Project's VCS-PD will be translated to the local language (Bahasa
Indonesia) upon its completion so that it can be provided as part of the ongoing community
consultations as envisioned by the VCS Safeguards requirements (VCS Standard v.4.0 § 3.16.3). Copies
of the PD Summary were provided to the 5 main village Teluk Meranti, Teluk Binjai, Petodaan, Kuala
Panduk, and Pulau Muda. A copy of the RER-CP VCS PD was placed online in the RER Website and
notices were provided to appropriate community leaders. The validation and verification process were
also socialised within the community, and they were informed of the 30-day public comment period.

Identification of Local Stakeholders

The Project identified early on as local stakeholders, the 9 villages, their political and religious leaders,
a variety of women's groups, local NGO's, health care practitioners, local educators, school groups,
local law enforcement, district and provincial forestry officers, etc. The RER Community Development
Team have regular contact with the stakeholders as noted above.

Risks to Local Stakeholders

The Project undertakes all reasonable efforts to avoid negative impacts on the community. The Project
does not anticipate any negative economic impacts to the community as a result of the Project's
activities as communities continue to have access to the forest to gather Non-timber forest products,
as allowed by law. The Project itself does not create any anthropogenic risks to the community as the
primary activity is simply the preservation of the forest.

Any risk that might be identified would be overcome by the socio-economic benefits that the RER
Project introduces through its community development activities as outlined above. The RER Project
and APRIL have established anti-discrimination and gender inclusion policies to prevent discrimination
and sexual harassment. Furthermore, the RER Project also uses the same policies and standards for
community engagement as APRIL. And although RER is not certified as a PEFC or Indonesian Forest
Certification Co-Operation (IFCC) concession (it does not produce timber products and is thus
ineligible), it nonetheless "piggybacks" on to all of the same PEFC and other sustainability requirements
related to local communities and local stakeholders.

The RER management team has substantial experience in implementing land management and
forestry activity under a variety of industry-specific quality marks, including PEFC, IFCC, and Singapore
Green Label31. RER's management is not only aware of these standards, but because the RER
Management team also has close connections to the management of the surrounding APRIL
concessions that have been certified to these sustainable forestry standards, they are well versed in
their application.

RER management also adheres to APRIL Group's operation management systems in Riau Province,
Indonesia. These operations are certified under OHSAS 18001 (Safety Management Systems), ISO

Page 82 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

9001 (Quality Management Systems), and ISO 14001 (Environment Management Systems) as well as
the more up-to-date ISO 45001 (Safety Management System) certification. See Appendices 4a-d.

Figure 17- APRIL Group's operation management systems certifications

Ongoing Communications and Grievance Redress Mechanism

RER-CP has an ongoing communications system in place with the local communities surrounding the
Project Area. The system includes local community relations officers from RER/APRIL staff in each
community; they are known as the Hubungan Masyarakat or "Humas" for short. They act as the initial
point of contact for any issues, grievances or otherwise. They are employed as community specialists to
interface between the various local communities and RER and APRIL. They can be contacted by local
officials, local community groups and villagers alike.

Additionally, the RER Project itself has a dedicated community relations team at its main office in
Kerinci. This team is who would be contacted by the Humas in case of any grievance issues. If a
grievance is logged, it would automatically begin to move through the RER/APRIL grievance redress
mechanism. The current system has been established since quite some time as it is mandated for
APRIL as part of its PEFC certifications; a schematic of the system is set forth below.

As APRIL Group is internationally audited by world-leading forest certification systems and rigorous,
globally recognised standards, robust grievance redress mechanisms are in place. In December 2014,
APRIL Group was the first Indonesian forestry company to receive sustainable forest management
certification under the PEFC in conjunction with its Indonesian partner, the IFCC. APRIL Group's
manufacturing operations received PEFC Chain-of-Custody certification in 2010, ensuring that all raw
materials coming into the mill are from non-controversial sources. Together, SFM and Chain-of-Custody
certification mean APRIL Group is now PEFC certified end-to-end throughout its supply chain. See
Appendices 4e-f – SFM and Chain of Custody Certifications.

The RER community relations team additionally is responsible for working with the community to
address a wide variety of issues, not just grievances. They are responsible for communicating with the
local fisherman, with the community on health and education issues, etc. The community relations
team is also available to speak directly to any member of the community if they wished to travel to
Kerinci as the RER office is located outside of the main gated APRIL facility.

Page 83 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Figure 18- SFM and Chain of Custody Certifications

Grievance Resolution Procedure

As such, the grievance resolution procedures are implemented according to leading industry
sustainability standards. They are in place to ensure that local communities and other relevant
stakeholders understand the process for raising relevant issues related to RER operations. The
Procedure includes guidance Project Proponents on how to handle grievances from external parties,
including individuals, government organisations and non-governmental organisations, concerning the
implementation of RER operations.

In resolving grievances, RER will prioritise consultative methods centred on dialogue. Any effective
grievance handling must resolve or settle grievances in an efficient, timely and appropriate manner
through a fair and transparent process to achieve consensual agreement between parties. Once a
potential grievance has been received and assessed, further action may be taken to verify the claims.
Once the grievance is confirmed, an Action Plan will be designed in consultation with concerned parties
to resolve/settle it, and proper implementation will be monitored. RER will provide progress updates to
relevant stakeholders and manage any follow-up action where necessary.

RER has adopted APRIL Group's publicly available Grievance Resolution Procedure:

https://sustainability.aprilasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/SOP-Grievance-Resolution-
Procedure.pdf

A detailed grievance resolution procedure workflow of the Grievance Resolution Procedure is set forth
below in Figure 19. The time frames established concerning the grievance procedures are:

• Claims or complaints must be attended within 15 working days of receipt of the request.
• Suggestions must be attended within 30 working days of receipt of the request.
• However, where it is not possible to provide an answer within the established frame time, the
claimant must be formally informed and the reasons for the delay and the new date for reply
must be given.
• The proposed mechanism will be in constant evaluation and adjustment, according to the
recorded dynamics and evaluation of effectiveness.

Page 84 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Figure 19- The Grievance Resolution Procedure

Worker Safety Mitigation Measures

As notes in §2.1 above, the RER Project has identified worker safety as a potential negative impact to
stakeholders as fieldwork in the tropical peat swamp forest and surrounding area is potentially
hazardous.

APRIL/RER have robust worker safety systems in place, both for APRIL and RER employees. There are
Standard Operating Procedures in place for many work activities, and safety is always a priority in APRIL
controlled area. Maintaining the safety of RER employees when in the field is a legal requirement and
an obligation taken by RER and APRIL very seriously. Safety mitigation activity in the field includes two-
way radios for regular radio check-ins, field-teams area always working in groups and always have first
aid equipment available. When working on boats, life jackets are mandatory. Employees who operate in
the field receive safety briefings and take part in safety training, including proper use of field
equipment and first aid. Before undertaking any type of new field activity, employees are provided
appropriate training to ensure that they can meet APRIL safety requirements. One example of this is the
ongoing training that the fire mitigation teams undertake. Fire suppression is especially dangerous,
and training to use the specialist firefighting equipment and proper operational procedures in a fire is
regular and ongoing.

In the event of injuries in the field because they do happen, support and assistance teams can be
quickly dispatched from Eco-Camp (located just outside of the RER Boundaries), which is the
operational HQ and dispatch point for all ranger and fire suppression activity. Eco-Camp is well stocked

Page 85 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

with first aid, rescue, and firefighting equipment. It also boasts river and road access to the RER-
Boundaries and river access to some of the most remote parts of the Project Area. Additionally, Eco-
Camp has its own helicopter landing and refuelling facilities that allow helicopter support for field
teams. In the event of a serious accident, helicopter extraction can be organized with APRIL’s own
helicopter that is based at the Kerinci HQ.

Further, APRIL’s activities in the Kampar Peninsula have been certified by both PEFC and IFCC, both of
which have requirements for ensuring occupational health and safety. Although RER is not itself
certified (only active forest harvesting operations can be certified), the exact safety requirements are in
effect for RER as for APRIL’s other forestry activity on the Kampar Peninsula.

Page 86 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

3 APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGY
Title and Reference of Methodology
The RER Project applies the latest version of VM0007 (version 1.6), including all applicable modules as
detailed in § 4.3.1 All REDD Activity Types, 4.3.3 Planned Deforestation/ Degradation and 4.5.1 All
WRC Activity Types, 4.5.2 RWE Project Activities and 4.5.3 CIW Project Activities. The below table lists
all methodology components and tools used.

No. Doc ID Version Issue Date Documents Name Abbreviation

1 VM0007 1.6 8-Sep-20 REDD+ Methodology Framework REDD+ MF
2 VMD0015 2.2 8-Sep-20 Methods for monitoring of GHG emissions and
removals in REDD and CIW projects M-REDD
3 VMD0016 1.2 8-Sep-20 Methods for Stratification of the Project Area X-STR
4 VMD0017 2.2 8-Sep-20 Estimation of Uncertainty for REDD+ Project
Activities X-UNC
5 VMD0046 1.1 8-Sep-20 Methods for monitoring of soil carbon stock M-PEAT
changes and greenhouse gas emissions and
removals in peatland rewetting and
conservation project activities
6 EB 31 1.0 4-May-07 CDM Tool for testing significance of GHG
Annex 16 emissions in A/R CDM project activities T-SIG
7 EB 35 1.0 19-Oct-07 CDM Combined tool to identify the baseline
Annex 19 scenario and demonstrate additionality in
A/R CDM project activities T-ADD
8 4.0 19-Sep-19 VCS AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool T-BAR
BASELINE
9 VMD0006 1.3 8-Sep-20 Estimation of baseline carbon stock changes BL-PL
and greenhouse gas emissions from planned
deforestation/forest degradation and planned
wetland degradation
10 VMD0042 1.1 8-Sep-20 Estimation of baseline soil carbon stock BL-PEAT
changes and greenhouse gas emissions in
peatland rewetting and conservation project
activities
LEAKAGE
11 VMD0009 1.3 8-Sep-20 Estimation of emissions from activity shifting LK-ASP
for avoiding planned deforestation/forest
degradation and avoiding planned wetland
degradation
12 VMD0044 1.1 8-Sep-20 Estimation of emissions from ecological LK-ECO
leakage
CARBON POOLS
13 VMD0001 1.1 11-Oct-13 Estimation of carbon stocks in the above- and CP-AB
belowground biomass in live tree and non-tree
pools
EMISSIONS
14 EB 33 1.0 27-Jul-07 Estimation of direct nitrous oxide emission
Annex 16 from nitrogen fertilization E-NA
15 VMD0013 1.2 8-Sep-20 Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from
biomass and peat burning E-BPB
Table 34- Title and Reference of Methodology

Page 87 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Applicability of Methodology
As detailed below Table 35, all applicability conditions of methodology VM0007 (REDD+ MF) and its
associated modules are met.

No. Module Applicability Condition Comment

1 VM0007 All land areas registered under the CDM or Condition met, no part of the
REDD+ MF, 4.2 under any other GHG program (both voluntary Project Area is under any CDM or
All Project and compliance-oriented) must be any other GHG program (either
Activities transparently reported and excluded from the voluntary or compliance-
project area. The exclusion of land in the oriented).
project area from any other GHG program must
be monitored over time and reported in the
monitoring reports.
2 VM0007 Land in the project area has qualified as forest Condition met. Land-use records
REDD+-MF, 4.3.1 (following the definition used by VCS; in indicate that all land subject to
- All REDD addition, see Section 5.1.2) for at least the 10 REDD project activities in the
Activity Types years prior to the project start date. project area is covered by
tropical forest on peatland and
has qualified as such under the
applicable definition for at least
10 years.
3 VM0007 If land within the project area is peatland or Condition met. All relevant WRC
REDD+ MF, 4.3.1 tidal wetlands and emissions from the SOC modules have been applied to
- All REDD pool is deemed significant, the relevant WRC estimate emissions from peat
Activity Types modules (see Table 3) must be applied soils.
alongside other relevant modules.
4 VM0007 Baseline deforestation and forest degradation Condition met. Baseline
REDD+ MF, 4.3.1 in the project area fall within one or deforestation falls in the
- All REDD more of the following categories: category of APD. See § 2.2.1.
Activity Types Unplanned deforestation (VCS category AUDD)
Planned deforestation/degradation (VCS The project area does not
category APD) include any significant
Degradation through extraction of wood for fuel unplanned deforestation or
(fuelwood and charcoal production) (VCS forest degradation and is not
category AUDD) modelled in either the baseline
of the project scenario.
5 VM0007 Leakage avoidance activities must not include: Condition met. The Project does
REDD+ MF, 4.3.1 Agricultural lands that are flooded to increase not promote either
- All REDD production (e.g., rice paddy) establishment of agriculture on
Activity Types Intensifying livestock production through use of flooded land or intensification of
feed-lots10 and/or manure lagoons. livestock production. See § 2.2.1
6 VM0007 Avoiding planned deforestation/degradation Condition met. See § 3.4
REDD+ MF, 4.3.3 activities are applicable under the following baseline scenario.
- Avoiding condition:
Planned Where conversion of forest lands to a
Deforestation/ deforested condition must be legally permitted.
Degradation
7 VM0007 WRC activities are not eligible under the Condition met. The project
REDD+-MF, 4.5.1 following conditions: activities do not lower the water
- All WRC Activity Project activities lower the water table, unless table (see § 1.11.2.2 &
Types the project converts open water to tidal §1.11.2.3), hydrological
wetlands, or improves the hydrological connection of the peatland does
connection to impounded waters. not lead to increase of
Changes in hydrology do not result in the emissions outside of the Project
accumulation or maintenance of SOC stock, Area (see § 4.3.4) and do not
noting that a) this pertains to projects that include burning of organic soil

Page 88 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

No. Module Applicability Condition Comment

intend to sequester carbon through (see § 4.2.1., § 4.2.1.2, §
sedimentation and/or vegetation development 4.2.3.2, § 4.2.4.2 & § 4.2.4.5)
and b) this does not pertain to projects that and does not include the use of
increase salinity to reduce CH4 emissions. fertilizers (see § 1.11.3.1-4, §
Projects that aim to decrease CH4 emissions 2.3, § 4.1.2 .and § 4.1.4.3).
through increased salinity must account for any
changes in SOC stocks.
Hydrological connectivity of the project area
with adjacent areas leads to a significant
increase in GHG emissions outside the project
area.
Project activities include the burning of organic
soil.
Nitrogen fertilizer(s), such as chemical fertilizer
or manure, are applied in the project area
during the project crediting period.
8 VM0007 For RWE project activities, prior to the project Condition met. The project will
REDD+-MF, 4.5.2 start date, the project area must meet the continue at a similar or greater
RWE Project following conditions: level of service or production
Activities a) The area is free of any land use that could during the project crediting
General be displaced outside the project area, as period as all concessions that
demonstrated by at least one of the following, make up the Project Area are
where relevant: under a IUPHHK-RE License, i.e.,
• The project area has been abandoned Ecosystem Restoration License,
for two or more years prior to the see § 1.7.2. The license are
project start date; or valid until the end of the Project
Crediting Period, and each
• Use of the project area for commercial
concession has a long term and
purposes (i.e., trade) is not profitable
annual management plan
as a result of salinity intrusion, market
(RKU/RKT) that is approved by
forces, or other factors. In addition,
the Indonesian Ministry of
timber harvesting in the baseline
Environment and Forestry which
scenario within the project area does
approved activity includes
not occur; or
restoration of the wetland
• Degradation of additional wetlands for ecosystem that makes up the
new agricultural/aquacultural sites Project Area, see § 1.7.2, § 1.9
within the country will not occur or is and Appendix 1 – Copies of the
prohibited by enforced law. Legal Documents for the four RE
OR concessions (Licenses and
b) The area is under a land use that could be Management Plans (RKU/RKT)
displaced outside the project area, although in
such case, baseline emissions from this land
use must not be accounted for, and where
degradation of additional wetlands for new
agricultural/aquacultural sites within the
country will not occur or is prohibited by
enforced law.
OR
c) The area is under a land use that will
continue at a similar or greater level of service
or production during the project crediting
period (e.g., reed or hay harvesting, collection
of fuelwood, subsistence harvesting,
commercial fishing).
9 VM0007 This methodology is applicable to rewetting Condition met. The project will
drained peatland (RDP) activities on project conduct rewetting drained
peatland (RDP) activities on

Page 89 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

No. Module Applicability Condition Comment

REDD+-MF, 4.5.2 areas that meet the VCS definition for peatland project areas that meet the VCS
RWE Project (see VCS Program Definitions). definition for peatland, see
Activities §1.13.1.7 and § 3.3.4.2.
Peatland
Rewetting
10 VM0007 This methodology is applicable to conservation Condition met. The module is
REDD+ MF, 4.5.3 of undrained and partially drained peatland applied applicable because the
CIW Project (CUPP) activities on project areas that meet the Project has both undrained
Activities VCS definition for peatland (see VCS Program peatlands and partially drained
Definitions). peatlands that meet the VCS
definition, see § 3.3.1.4.
Project activities conserving tidal wetlands may
include: In regard to conserving tidal
1. Protecting at-risk wetlands (e.g., wetlands, the Project has no
establishing conservation easements, tidal wetlands and so this
establishing community supported portion of the applicability
management agreements, establishing condition is not applicable.
protective government regulations, and
preventing disruption of water and/ or
sediment supply to wetland areas)
2. Improving water management on
drained wetlands
3. Maintaining or improving water quality
for seagrass meadows
4. Recharging sediment to avoid drowning
of coastal wetlands
5. Creating accommodation space for
wetlands migrating with sea-level rise
11 VM0007 Avoiding planned wetland degradation activities Condition Met: All The Project
REDD+ MF, are eligible under the following condition: land is all designated
Avoiding Planned Conversion of intact or partially altered “Production Forest” or Hutan
Wetland wetlands to a degraded condition must be Produksi or Production KPH (see
Degradation legally permitted. Govt. Reg P.6/2007, Chapter 2,
(APWD) Article 5(1), article 9(1)(a),
Chapter IV, Part One, Article 17
and as such is legally eligible for
conversion to non-forest land
such as would occur through
selective logging or clear felling
for plantation forestry activity
(HTI). See also Chapter IV, Part
four, Paragraph 5, Articles 37-39
of Govt. reg P. 6/2007.
12 VMD0001 This module is applicable to all forest types and Condition met. The Project Area
CP-AB age classes. Inclusion of the above-ground tree includes a variety of forest types
biomass pool as part of the project boundary is all of which are applicable to the
mandatory as per the framework module module (i.e. all forest types and
REDD-MF. classes applicable). Further the
Project includes above ground
biomass as a carbon pool.
13 VMD0001 Non-tree aboveground biomass must be Condition met. Non-tree above-
CP-AB included as part of the project boundary if the ground biomass is excluded
following applicability criteria are met (per because it is greater in the
framework module REDD-MF): project scenario than in the
baseline scenario, and

Page 90 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

No. Module Applicability Condition Comment

• Stocks of non-tree aboveground Non tree biomass was not
biomass are greater in the baseline determined to be significant he
than in the project scenario, and baseline scenario assumes that
all-natural forest biomass will be
• Non-tree aboveground biomass is
cleared for the establishment of
determined to be significant (using the
forest plantations, and this will
T-SIG module).
logically reduce baseline
Belowground (tree and non-tree) biomass are
biomass to zero including Non-
not required for inclusion in the project
tree above-ground biomass to
boundary because omission is conservative.
zero and significantly less than
in the project scenario.
Furthermore, the tier 2 emission
factors32 (insert citation for
Krisnawati et all (2015)) for
understory is between 3.30% to
4.94% of AGB which is
significantly less than the
estimates of total tree biomass
used in the baseline and project
scenarios.

Belowground tree biomass (tree

roots) is included because it is
allowed.
Below ground non- tree biomass
organic soil) is included as it is
allowed.

Belowground non-tree biomass

(organic soil) is included
because it covers the entirety of
the Project Area and is allowed
14 VMD0006 The module is applicable for estimating the Condition Met: The Project land
BL-PL baseline emissions on forest lands (usually is all designated “Production
privately or government owned) that are legally Forest” or Hutan Produksi or
authorized and documented to be converted to Production KPH (see Govt. Reg
non-forest land. P.6/2007, Chapter 2, Article
5(1), article 9(1)(a), Chapter IV,
Part One, Article 17 and as such
is legally eligible for conversion
to non-forest land such as would
occur through selective logging
or clear felling for plantation
forestry activity (HTI). See also
Chapter IV, Part four, Paragraph
5, Articles 37-39 of Govt. reg P.
6/2007.
15 VMD0006 Where, pre-project, unsustainable fuelwood Condition not applicable. There
BL-PL collection is occurring within the project is no history of fuelwood
boundaries Modules BL-DFW and LK-DFW must collection in the project area and
be used to determine potential leakage. this activity is excluded from the
baseline and project scenarios.
The Project does not avoid
unsustainable fuelwood
collection.

Page 91 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

No. Module Applicability Condition Comment

16 VMD0009 The module is applicable for estimating the Condition met. See § 5.5
LK-ASP leakage emissions due to activity shifting from Leakage Monitoring.
forest lands that are legally authorised and
documented to be converted to non-forest land,
including activity shifting to forested peatland
that is drained as a consequence of project
implementation. Under these situations,
displacement of baseline activities can be
controlled and measured directly by monitoring
the baseline deforestation agents or class of
agents.
17 VMD0009 This tool must be used for projects in areas Condition met– The tool is used
LK-ASP where planned deforestation happens on because the Project includes
forested peatlands, regardless of the absence areas where planned
of peatland within the project boundaries. deforestation is and has
happened on forested peatlands
directly adjacent to the Project
Area. Additionally, the tool is
justified because the Project
activity avoids the baseline
scenario of planned
deforestation of 78,425 ha of
planned deforestation of
forested peatlands in the Project
Area.
18 VMD0009 The module is mandatory if module BL-PL has Condition met. The Project has
LK-ASP been used to define the baseline, and the used module BL-PL and
applicability conditions in module BL-PL must complied to BL-PL in full.
be complied with in full.
19 VMD0013 This module is applicable to REDD project Condition met. RER-CP does not
E-BPB activities with emissions from biomass burning have any fire in its baseline
and REDD-WRC project activities with because there is no significant
emissions from biomass and/or peat burning. anthropogenic burning occurring
This module is also applicable to RWE and ARR- in the Project Area in the
RWE project activities with emissions from peat baseline as there are have been
burning. no communities that live in or
adjacent to the
Project Area.
Nature fire risk is virtually
absent in the peat swamp, as it
is far too wet for lightning
strikes, even in the “dry
season”.
The Project has not had any peat
or biomass fires in the Project
Area since the Project Start date
so far. The Project commits to
accounting all anthropogenic fire
that might occur in the future
with E-BPB, as required.
20 VMD0015 Strata as defined in the relevant baseline Condition met. Strata are fixed
M-REDD modules are fixed and may not be changed according to § 3.3.1.2. Strata
without baseline revision. may be revised upon baseline
adjustment at year 10.

Page 92 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

No. Module Applicability Condition Comment

21 VMD0015 The module is mandatory for REDD, CIW-REDD, Condition Met: The Project has
M-REDD RWE-REDD and stand-alone CIW project applied all relevant aspects of
activities. VM0015 M-REDD in its
monitoring approach as the
Project falls under four
categories of REDD, CIW-REDD,
RWE-REDD and stand-alone CIW
project activities.
22 VMD0015 Where selective logging is taking place in the Condition not applicable. The
M-REDD project case: Project does not involve
Emissions from logging may be omitted if it can selective logging or any timber
be demonstrated the emissions are de minimis harvesting because the current
using Tool T-SIG. legal licenses for each of the
If emissions from logging are not omitted as de areas is IUPHHK-RE License, i.e.,
minimis, logging may only take place within Ecosystem Restoration License,
forest management areas that possess and see § 1.7.2. For selective logging
maintain a Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) to occur the concessions would
certificate for the years when the selective have to have a license to
logging occurs. selectively harvest timber, this
Logging operations may only conduct selective would be a IUPHHK-HTR license.
logging that maintains a land cover that meets
the definition of forest within the project
boundary.
All trees cut for timber extraction during logging
operations must have a DBH greater than 30
cm.
During logging operations, only the bole/log of
the felled tree may be removed. The top/crown
of the tree must remain within the forested
area.
The logging practices cannot include the piling
and/or burning of logging slash
Volume of timber harvested must be measured
and monitored.
23 VMD0016 In case of REDD, above-ground biomass Condition met. Above-ground
X-STR stratification is only used for pre-deforestation biomass stratification is only
forest classes, and strata are the same in the used for pre-deforestation forest
baseline and the project scenario. Post- classes, and strata are the same
deforestation land uses are not stratified. in the baseline and the project
Instead, average post-deforestation stock scenario. Post-deforestation
values (e.g. simple or historical area-weighted areas are classified simply as
approaches are used, as per module BL-UP). "plantation/infrastructure".

24 VMD0016 For peatland rewetting and conservation Condition met. See application
X-STR project activities this module must be used to of X-STR in § 3.3.4.2 and
delineate non-peat versus peat and to stratify 3.3.4.3.
the peat according to peat depth and soil
emission characteristics unless it can be
demonstrated that the expected emissions
from the soil organic carbon pool or change in
the soil organic carbon pool in the project
scenario are de minimis
25 VMD0016 In the case of WRC project activities, the Condition met. The Project is
X-STR project boundary must be designed such that taking significant steps to
the negative effect of drainage activities that maintain the intactness of
hydrology in the project area and

Page 93 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

No. Module Applicability Condition Comment

occur outside the project area on the project to restore hydrology in areas
GHG benefits are minimized. which have been disturbed by
existing drainage. The Project is
monitoring areas outside the
Project are which could be under
threat of disturbance in ordered
to minimise potential impacts in
terms of drainage. See § 5.3.2.1
(2c) Ground Water Table &
Subsidence Monitoring, (2e)
Dam & Canal Monitoring and (3)
Leakage Monitoring.
26 VMD0017 The module is mandatory when using VCS Condition met. X-UNC has been
X-UNC methodology VM0007. It is applicable for used throughout to estimate
estimating the uncertainty of estimates of uncertainties associated with
emissions and removals of CO 2-e generated this Project. See § 5.6
from REDD and WRC project activities. The Uncertainty Monitoring.
module focuses on the following sources of
uncertainty:
Determination of rates of deforestation and
degradation
Uncertainty associated with estimation of
stocks in carbon pools and changes in carbon
stocks
Uncertainty associated with estimation of peat
emissions
Uncertainty in assessment of project emissions
27 VMD0017 Where an uncertainty value is not known or Condition met. In all cases
X-UNC cannot be simply calculated, then a project where an uncertainty value is
must justify that it is using an indisputably not known or cannot be simply
conservative number and an uncertainty of 0% calculated, the Project provides
may be used for this component. a justification that the value
used is an indisputably
conservative number (or an IPCC
default value as instructed by
VM0007.

28 VMD0017 Guidance on uncertainty – a precision target of Condition met. Uncertainty

X-UNC a 95% confidence interval half-width equal to requirements have been taken
or less than 15% of the recorded value shall be into account in project planning
targeted. This is especially important in terms and carbon stock calculations as
of project planning for measurement of carbon per See § 5.6 Uncertainty
stocks; enough measurement plots should be Monitoring.
included to achieve this precision level across
the measured stocks.
29 VMD0042 This module is applicable to RDP and CUPP Condition met. See #8 above.
BL-PEAT activities on project areas that meet the VCS
definition for peatland. The scope of this
module is limited to domed peatlands in the
tropical climate zone.
30 VMD0042 It must be demonstrated by using the latest Condition met. GHG emissions
BL-PEAT version of the CDM A/R methodological tool: (specifically N2O) are excluded
"Tool for testing significance of GHG emissions from the baseline and project
in A/R CDM project activities" (T-SIG) that N2O scenarios. The potential
emissions in the project scenario are not emissions sources are fire and
significant, or it must be demonstrated that nitrogenous fertilizer

Page 94 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

No. Module Applicability Condition Comment

N2O emissions will not increase in the project applications, which are both
scenario compared to the baseline scenario, assumed to be absent in both
and therefore N2O emissions need not be the baseline and project
accounted for. scenarios.

Therefore, the net GHG

emissions from both the
baseline and project scenarios
are estimated to be zero which
is less than 5% of the total
decreases in carbon pools and
increases in emissions and less
than 5% of net anthropogenic
removals by sinks.
31 VMD0042 In the baseline scenario, the peatland must be Condition met. The baseline
BL-PEAT (partially) drained. At project start, the peatland scenario is of industrial
may still be undrained pulpwood plantation in peatsoil
that requires substantial water
table management (i.e.
lowering). At the start of the
project the vast majority of the
Project Area remained
undrained. See § 3.4 baseline
scenario and §4.1 Baseline
Emissions.
32 VMD0044 Leakage caused by hydrological connectivity is Condition met. Ecological
LK-ECO avoided by project design and site selection, as Leakage does not occur in the
outlined in Chapter 5 (Procedures of Project. See application of LK-
VMD0044). ECO in § 4.3.4 Estimation of
Emissions from Ecological
Leakage.
33 VMD0046 This module is applicable to RDP and CUPP Condition met: The Project is
M-PEAT activities as defined in the VCS Standard. one where some peatlands are
rewetted, i.e. Restoration of
Drained Peatlands a.k.a.
Restoring Wetlands Ecosystems
(RWE). The Project is one where
the partially drained peatland is
preserved i.e., Conservation of
undrained and partially drained
peatlands (CUPP) a.k.a.
Conservation of Intact Wetlands
(CIW)
34 VMD0046 The project area must meet the VCS definition This project area is located in
M-PEAT for peatland. This module is limited to domed and area with layering of
peatlands in the tropical climate zone. naturally accumulating organic
matter (peat). The Project is
located in a tropical climate
zone and on a wetlands forest
peat dome system.
35 VMD0046 Furthermore, the following applicability Conditions Met:
M-PEAT conditions apply: The baseline and project
scenarios exclude emissions
It must be demonstrated using tool T-SIG that from fire and so N2O emissions
N2O emissions in the project scenario are not from fire are not calculated.
significant, or it must be demonstrated that Furthermore, N2O emissions in

Page 95 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

No. Module Applicability Condition Comment

N2O emissions will not increase in the project the baseline assessment are
scenario compared to the baseline scenario, entirely the result of the
and therefore N2O emissions need not be application of fertilizers to
accounted for. plantations. The project scenario
excluded all plantation
development and result in the
elimination of all N2O emissions
from fertilizer, thus N 2O
emissions will not increase.

36 VMD0046 In the baseline scenario the peatland must be Condition Met: Under the
M-PEAT drained or partially drained. baseline scenario, the peatland
area would have been drained
for Acacia plantation activity.
37 VMD0046 At project start the peatland may still be Condition met: at the project
M-PEAT undrained. start date the project area was
not drained for industrial
plantation activity and was only
partially drained in less than
10,000 ha of the Project Area.
See §4.1.5.1
38 VMD0046 It must be demonstrated using Module LK-ECO Condition Met: Per § 4.3.4,
M-PEAT that ecological leakage must not occur Ecological Leakage does not
occur in this Project and all
measures have been taken to
ensure Ecological Leakage
remains = 0. [LK-ECO]
39 T-SIG The tool shall be used in the application of an Condition met. T-Sig was used to
EB 31 A/R CDM approved methodology to an A/R guide the selection of GHG
CDM project activity: emissions and carbon pools.
To determine which decreases in carbon pools
and increases in emissions of the greenhouse
gases measured in CO2 equivalents that result
from the implementation of the A/R project
activity, are insignificant and can be neglected.
b) To ensure that it is valid to neglect
decreases in carbon pools and increases in
GHG emissions by sources stated as being
insignificant in the applicability conditions of an
A/R CDM methodology.
40 T-ADD Forestation of the land within the proposed Condition Met – The Project
EB 35 project boundary performed with or without included “Step 0” of the Tool as
Annex 19 being registered as the A/R CDM project an additional procedure as part
activity shall not lead to violation of any of the stepwise additionality
applicable law even if the law is not enforced. analysis mandated by T-ADD as
set forth in § 3.6
41 T-ADD This tool is not applicable to small - scale Condition not applicable
EB 35 afforestation and reforestation project
Annex 19 activities.
42 E-NA This tool is not applicable when: Condition not applicable Project
EB 33 • A/R CDM project activities are implemented activities do not apply any
Annex 16 on wetlands. nitrogenous fertilizer, and
• Flooding irrigation or any flood has occurred project activities are
within period of 3 months from date of implemented on wetlands.
fertilization.
Table 35- Summary of applicability conditions

Page 96 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Project Boundary

General
The Project area includes all lands areas encompassed within the legal boundaries of the following four
Indonesian Forestry concessions located on the Island of Sumatra and the Province of Riau. Togeth
they are cumulatively referred to as Riau Ecosystem Restoration Carbon Project (RER-CP and consist of:

1. PT. Gemilang Cipta Nusantara (GCN) – License/Decree No; SK.395/Menhut-II/2012

2. PT. The Best One Unitimber (TBOT) – License/Decree No.: SK.747/Menhut-II/2014
3. PT. Sinar Mutiara Nusantra (SMN) – License/Decree No.: SK.162/Menhut-II/2014
4. PT. Global Alam Nusantara (GAN) – License/Decree No.: SK.230/Menhut-II/2014
The areas of the 4 concessions that make up the Project area are PT. Gemilang Cipta Nusantara
(20,123 ha), PT. The Best One Unitimber (40,666 ha), PT. Sinar Mutiara Nusantra (32,776 ha) and PT.
Global Alam Nusantara (36,525 ha). The total land area is 130,090 hectares. The four concessions are
granted by the Ministry of Forestry under an Ecosystem Restoration license which is described in
section §1.7 Ownership. The Project area is shown in the map below.

The geographical boundaries are derived from legally mandated boundary survey and whose
coordinates have been captured in GIS. The boundary surveys (SK Tata Batas) are listed in the tables
of §1.7.2 Approval of Ownership Documentation and a physical copy of the same will be provided to the
auditor upon request. A digital copy of all of the concession boundary data in GIS format will be made
available to the Project’s auditor, which will be separate from the mandatory Project Area .kml file. The
project area contains no land areas registered under the CDM or any other GHG program. The Project
boundaries are fixed and will not change over the lifetime of the Project.

Page 97 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 15- Boundary map of the Project area with the boundaries of the four concessions

REDD and WRC Boundaries

The overall purpose of section 3.3.3 is to describe the REDD and WRC activity boundaries. This is
achieved by first stratifying the project area into discrete, relatively homogenous units from which the
boundaries of eligible activities can be determined. All of the REDD activity takes place in an area that
has qualified as a forest for more than 10 years prior to the start date of the Project; it has qualified as
part of the Indonesian forestry estate, and specifically as production forest. (See below at §3.5.3.1 and
Maps 27 & 28). WRC activity in the RER Project Area takes place on peat swamp forests that are
internationally recognised as such 33, and by the Indonesian government in their national peatland
maps.

Spatial Boundary of the Project Area

The Project Area, in order to clarify boundaries of project activities was required to be stratified into
discrete units of land that have relatively homogeneous emission and/or carbon stock characteristics
(per VCS methodology VMD0016 - X-STR). This includes stratification by:

• Aboveground biomass (AGB) & vegetation types

• Soil types (peat or non-peat soils)
• Peat thickness and peat depletion time (PDT)

Page 98 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

• Peat drainage status

The following sub-sections bellow, § 3.3.4.1 (AGB stratification), §3.3.4.2 (BGB stratification) and §
3.3.4.3 (drained peatland stratification) describe the various spatial boundaries of the Project Area in
much greater detail in order to clearly map out the boundaries of each project category and
subsequent project activity.

Above-ground Biomass (AGB) Stratification

Mapping of vegetation cover types

In order to classify the above ground carbon
stock, the Project Area was stratified into
homogeneous classes based on
characteristics of the landcover. Remotely
sensed imagery assisted with the
delineation of the project area based on the
various vegetation types and structures as
well as land cover features. Additionally, on
the ground field data was used to verify and
quantify above-ground biomass (AGB) and
carbon (C) in each stratum. All of the data,
satellite imagery and actual field data were Figure 20- Above-ground stratification process
subsequently calibrated and cross-checked
and re-calibrated as necessary. Figure 20 sets forth the process used by the Project for stratification of
AGB.

Spectral data from 18 May 2013 Landsat imagery - number L8 180612 Lv5, downloaded from the
USGS online database was used to map the land cover classes. The land cover class analysis was
conducted using supervised classification with training points using 169 inventory plots. In addition,
the Peat Dome Forest in PT. GAN was identified as a unique and distinct ecosystem being discernible
from its spectral signature and texture from the satellite image and observed in the field during
flyovers. The data acquisition, pre-processing, classification and accuracy assessment methods
followed the steps outlined in §4.1.1.

Satellite images used for the process of stratification and AGB analyses are provided in Table 36. The
result of the stratification exercise based on the field data and combined Landsat analyses is provided
in Map 16 and Table 36.

No Satellite sensor ID Dated

1 Landsat 8 LC81260602019138LGN00 18 June, 2013
Table 36- Satellite imagery used for stratification

Page 99 of 404
 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

No Vegetation type Hectares %

1 Peat Dome Forest 23,748 18.3
2 Dense Swamp Forest 19,287 14.8
3 Medium Swamp Forest 63,328 48.7
4 Sparse Swamp Forest 22,439 17.2
5 Non-Forest 1,230 0.9
6 Water Bodies 59 0.0
7 Total Area 130,090 100.0
Table 37- Land cover of the project area based on the Landsat and PALSAR analyses

Biomass estimation using forest inventory

Above ground biomass was sampled using 169 sampling plots 34 distributed across the project area
(both randomly and systematically along 34 transects crossing the project area). The plot data was
used to calculate the mean AGB for each stratum.

All landcover types were statistically significantly different and had biomass means more than 20%
different from each other. As per VCS methodology module VMD0016 (X-STR), all strata with means
were separated.

Map 16- Stratification of the project area based on the Landsat analyses

For the purposes of AGB stratification, we have combined Peat Dome Forest, Dense Swamp Forest,
Medium Swamp Forest, and Sparse Swamp Forest into a single class called Swamp Forest Vegetation.
Non-Forest and Water Bodies have been combined into the classification of “Non-forest vegetation”
(see Map 16 and Table 38).

No. Vegetation type Hectares (ha) %

Page 100 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

1 Forest vegetation 128,801 99

2 Non-forest vegetation 1,289 1
3 Total 130,090 100
Table 38- Final AGB stratification summary of the project area

As mandated by the VCS methodology VM0007 in module VMD0015 (M-REDD), the classification
accuracy must be at least 90%. The suitability of the classification was assessed using standard ANOVA
and Scheffé's method (single-step multiple comparison procedure) for testing post hoc differences
between means.

The ANOVA indicates that the model (stratification) was significant at 95% confidence level.

ANOVA
Source SS df MS F F_% CL95 Significant Diff R2
Model 1,707,579 3 569,193 284 2.66 Yes 84%
Error 331,191 165 2,007
Total 2,038,769 168
Table 39- ANOVA test for stratification model

The Scheffé analysis demonstrated that all post hoc differences between means were significant at
95% confidence level.

Scheffé Analysis
Forest Type N SS Avg.
Peat Dome Forest 10 28,142 199.3
Dense Swamp Forest 50 93,500 150.3
Medium Swamp Forest 92 89,076 112.7
Sparse Swamp Forest 17 120,473 78.4
SSE 331,191
MSE 1,995
p 0.05
k 3
N 169
F(p, k-1, N-k) 3.05

Pair Wise Differences Between Sample Means

Dense Medium Sparse
Forest Type Peat Dome Swamp Swamp Swamp
Forest Forest Forest Forest
Peat Dome Forest 49.0 86.6 120.9
Dense Swamp Forest 37.6 71.9
Medium Swamp Forest 34.3
Sparse Swamp Forest

Table 40- Scheffé Analysis

Scheffé Comparison Values

Peat Dense Medium Sparse
Forest Type Dome Swamp Swamp Swamp
Forest Forest Forest Forest
Peat Dome Forest 38.2 36.7 44.0
Dense Swamp Forest 19.4 31.0
Medium Swamp Forest 29.1

Page 101 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Sparse Swamp Forest

Significant Differences
Dense Medium Sparse
Peat Dome
Forest Type Swamp Swamp Swamp
Forest
Forest Forest Forest
Peat Dome Forest Yes Yes Yes
Dense Swamp Forest Yes Yes
Medium Swamp Forest Yes
Sparse Swamp Forest
Table 41- Scheffé Comparison Values and Significant Differences

All forestry classifications are statistically significantly different at 95% confidence level as is
recommended from each other as is recommended in the IPCC Good Practice Guidance 2003 35.
Furthermore, alternative forest classifications were used, and none of these classifications were able
to meet the 95% confidence level threshold. The level of uncertainty was found to be 8.6% which
comports with the requirements of VSC methodology VM0007 and module VMD0017 (X-UNC).

AGB carbon stock estimation

Using the AGB map of the Project Area, carbon stock was quantified for each stratum. Project equation
1 is derived from equation 1 of module VMD0001 CP-AB.

(1)

The AGB carbon stock of the Project Area was found to be 7,768,160 t.C for the forest stratum. We
assume there is no above-ground forest-related carbon for the non-forest stratum. AGB carbon stock
stratification in the Project Area at the beginning of the Project is set forth in Map 16, and the
calculation results for each stratum is provided in Table 42 below.

Strata Area Total AGB C Stock (t

Strata Average AGB (t. ha -1)
(ha) C)
Peat Dome Forest 23,748 199.3 2,224,471
Dense Swamp Forest 19,287 150.3 1,362,461
Medium Swamp Forest 63,328 112.7 3,354,410
Sparse Swamp Forest 22,439 78.4 826,819

Page 102 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Non-Forest and Water Bodies 1,289 0 0

Total 130,090 7,768,160
Table 42- AGB carbon stock in the Project Area at the project start

Below-ground Biomass (BGB) Stratification

Stratification of Peatland and Non-Peatland

The Kampar Peninsula is almost entirely made up of a complete peat dome formation. This is
confirmed by both the Government peatland maps 36 and multiple peat surveys that have been
conducted.

The RER project boundaries are located entirely within this peat landscape. Peat depth measurements
have been taken at three points in time:

• The initial carbon survey conducted in 2015 comprised of 293 plots.

• University of Riau (UNRI) conducted a soil survey across the Kampar Peninsula in 2019. 32
plots of the UNRI survey were located in PT GAN and were used for this analysis.
• In September 2020, RER-CP conducted its own supplementary soil survey of 118 peat soil
cores comprising of 18 samples in PT GAN, 20 samples PT SMN, 52 samples in PT TBOT and
28 samples in PT GCN.

In total, 443 points within the project boundaries, and peat depth values have ranged from 298 cm
(which is an outlier) to 1,549 cm. We can safely assume that 100% of the project area is covered in
peat soils and that there are no significant areas where peat is less than 0.5m (i.e. mineral soils).

Stratification of Peat Thickness and PDT

The main peatland stratification tasks for the RER Project involves the stratification of peat according
to peat depth and peat characteristics per VMD0016 (X-STR). Peatland covers the whole landscape
area. Our calculations indicate that no areas exist within the Project where the crediting period exceeds
the peat depletion time (PDT). However, for the sake of conservatism and to avoid all doubt peat will be
stratified according to peat soil depth at 50cm strata from 350cm up to 1500cm.

The rate of peat depletion in the project area was calculated based on the following, which are then
each considered in more detail below:

• Surface elevation;
• Peat thickness;
• Drainability elevation limit; and
• Subsidence related to microbial decomposition and burning.
Digital Elevation Model and Drainability Elevation Limit

The deforestation agents in the baseline scenario were conservatively assumed to not practice
mechanical pumping. The result is that any thickness of peat that would be lost is restricted by the
Drainability Elevation Limit (DEL) – the elevation at which the peat cannot be drained any further

Page 103 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

without mechanical pumping, defined by the water level in the closest water body. As subsidence
proceeds over time and the land surfaces eventually reach the DEL, additional drainage will
nonetheless be avoided as the remainder of the peat layers will remain waterlogged. For the purposes
of the RER Project, the DEL will be set at sea level, i.e. 0.0m altitude.

To create a surface elevation map (Digital Elevation Model, DEM), LiDAR data was used from a survey
that was conducted by Deltares Indonesia 37, an independent institute for applied research in the field
of water and subsurface. Strip lines of LiDAR images were collected with strip spacing between
individual LiDAR flight lines for the LiDAR data ranging between 5 and 10 km (See Map 17). The
elevation model has been generated through inverse distance interpolation using the LiDAR strip data,
the filtered and corrected SRTM-30 data, and contour lines based on interpretation of LiDAR strip data.
Accuracy is estimated to be a) within 0.25 m, on the LiDAR strip data; b) within 0.5 - 1.0 m, 3 km from
LiDAR strip data; and c) within 2.0 m, more than 3 km from LiDAR strip data. Approximately 90% of the
project area is located on the LiDAR strip data or within 3km of LiDAR strip data.

Map 17- LiDAR data collection on the Kampar Peninsula

Page 104 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 18- Digital elevation model of the project area

Given that 100% of the peat is at or above the DEL, we assume that 100% of the peatlands are
available for microbial decomposition and burning.

Peat thickness

To determine peat thickness, data from 3 peatland surveys were combined.

1. Initial Peat Survey. The Project conducted a peat auger soil survey of GCN, TBOT and SMN
blocks in 2015 comprising 292 peat depth measurements. The peat depths of the plots
ranged from 2.98m to greater than 11.0m (11.0m was the maximum of the peat auger
length). Sample locations were selected using a systematic location of transects across the
landscape. The transects were orientated in a north-south direction with up to 5 peatland
sample plots measured at a spacing of 200m between plots.

Table 43- Peat Depth Values from Initial Peat Survey (all values in meters)

Page 105 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

2. University of Riau Survey. The University of Riau conducted a peat depth survey in 2019 of
the whole Kampar Peninsula. A total of 32 plots were located in the GAN block. The peat
depths of the plots averaged 11.31m and ranged from 5.96m to greater than 15.49m.
Sample locations were selected using a systematic design of 3 east-west transects.
3. 2020 Peat Survey. RER-CP conducted a peat auger soil survey of GAN, GCN, TBOT and SMN
blocks in 2020 comprising 118 peat soil samples. These plots were taken to verify the
earlier surveys for the presence or absence of peat and peat thickness and soil
characteristics in the visited locations as shown from soil samplings.
In total, 443 peat soil depth measurements have been collected throughout the RER project area using
peat augers. See Map 19 below. A record of these sample points and their respective depths and soil
characteristics is shown in Appendix 9 – Peat Inventories of the Project Area.

Map 19- Map of peatland soil surveys

This sampling design fulfils the requirements described in the VCS methodology VM0007 modules
VMD0042 (M-PEAT) and VMD0016 (X-STR). Peat thickness was then modelled based on spatial
interpolation (Kriging method) of inputs from peat thickness points.

A peat depth model was then derived from the peat depth sample points as follows. Project equation 2
derived from the regression line of Figure 21:

𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ (𝑐𝑚) = 94.997 ∗ 𝐴𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒 (𝑚) (2)

The ANOVA indicates that the regression model (stratification) was significant at 95% confidence level.

Page 106 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

ANOVA
Source SS df MS F F_% CL95 Significant Diff
Regression 304,411,438 1 569,193 284 2.66 Yes
Error 4,424,410 442 2,007
Total 308,835,848 443
Table 44- ANOVA test for regressions model (stratification)

The coefficient estimate was significant at 95% confidence level.

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

94.99692 0.544747897 174.3869 0 93.9263 96.06753
Table 45- Coefficient estimate of ANOVA test

1600

1400

1200
y = 94.997x
R² = 0.9857
1000
Peat Depth (cm)

2020
800
FFI
UNRI
600 Linear (All)

400

200

0
4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00
Elevation (m)

Figure 21- Peat Depth (m) Against Elevation (m) Graph

The peat depth model and the regression parameters are significant at 95% confidence level and
provide an accurate and precise predictor of peat soil depth in accordance with X-UNC.

A peat depth map was then generated from the altitude map by estimating peat depth as a function of
peat altitude at each point of the digital terrain model. As per VCS module VMD0016 (X-STR), our initial
analysis indicated that the entire peatland in the Project Area must be stratified. Stratification by peat

Page 107 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

thickness at a 50 cm resolution was. The project area was stratified into 3 classes, as presented in
Table 46 and Map 20.

Peat
Peat Depth PT. GAN PT. GCN PT. SMN
Depth Total (ha) PT. TBOT (ha)
Class (SNI) (ha) (ha) (ha)
(cm)
350-400 190 0 0 0 190
Deep 400-450 1,776 0 5 0 1,771
450-500 2,170 148 184 0 1,837
500-550 3,650 247 651 0 2,751
550-600 5,732 373 3,024 0 2,335
Very Deep
600-650 6,260 498 2,482 4 3,275
650-700 6,476 496 2,981 290 2,709
700-750 12,999 330 5,431 1,180 6,058
750-800 9,111 380 999 2,631 5,101
800-850 15,844 816 2,133 4,516 8,379
850-900 13,902 1,781 1,781 7,105 3,235
900-950 15,651 2,845 452 9,595 2,760
Extremely
very deep 950-
12,599 5,049 0 7,285 264
1000
1000-
9,525 9,355 0 170 0
1050
1050-
14,205 14,205 0 0 0
1100
Total 130,090.00 36,524.90 20123.30 32,776.30 40,665.50
Table 46- Peat thickness stratification of the project area

Map 20- Final peat stratification of the project area

Page 108 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 21- Peat thickness stratification of the project area (estimated at 50cm resolution)

Peat depletion time (PDT)

A peat depletion time (PDT) table was created. The resulting PDT table was based on the above peat
thickness map, the DEM, the DEL and the calculated peat subsidence in the baseline scenario (see §
3.4). Table 47 sets forth the calculation of the Project Area PDT stratification. Project equation 3 is
derived from equation 23 of module VMD0016 X-STR.

𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑡−𝐵𝑆𝐿𝑖
𝑡𝑃𝐷𝑇 − 𝐵𝑆𝐿𝑖 = 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 (3)
𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑡−𝐵𝑆𝐿𝑖

Where:

tPDT-BSL,i Peat depletion time in the baseline scenario in stratum i in years elapsed since the
project start (yr)

Depth peat-BSL,i Average peat depth in the baseline scenario in stratum i at project start (m).
In this case = peat thickness available for microbial decomposition

Rate peat loss-BSL,i Rate of peat loss due to subsidence and peat burning in the baseline
scenario in stratum i; (m yr-1 )

Peat Depth Peat Depth (cm) PDT Range Area (ha) % of the peat % of the project
Class (SNI) (years) area area

Page 109 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Deep 350-400 91-104 190.2 0% 0%

400-450 104-117 1,776.30 1% 1%
450-500 117-130 2,170.10 2% 2%
500-550 130-143 3,649.90 3% 3%
Very Deep
550-600 143-156 5,732.10 4% 4%
600-650 156-169 6,259.80 5% 5%
650-700 169-182 6,475.80 5% 5%
700-750 182-195 12,998.60 10% 10%
750-800 195-208 9,110.60 7% 7%
800-850 208-221 15,843.70 12% 12%
Extremely Very 850-900 221-234 13,902.20 11% 11%
Deep 900-950 234-247 15,651.50 12% 12%
950-1000 247-260 12,598.90 10% 10%
1000-1050 260-273 9,525.10 7% 7%
1050-1100 273-286 14,205.30 11% 11%
Total 130,090. 100% 100%
Table 47- Summary of the PDT stratification of the project area

0% of the peatland in the project area are expected to deplete before reaching the end of the 57-year
crediting period, 100% are likely to exceed the peat depletion time of 100 years.

Areas by Peat Depth Start of Project - by Baseline Development Area (ha)

Years of Project Development and Conservation Areas (ha)
Peat depth Conservation Total Area
(cm) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Area (ha) (ha)
350-400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 190
400-450 12 22 0 23 2 0 0 1,718 1,776
450-500 115 183 0 306 35 2 0 1,527 2,170
500-550 339 678 104 758 188 47 0 1,534 3,650
550-600 433 2,526 723 560 230 145 0 1,116 5,732
600-650 873 1,283 1,386 721 566 305 0 1,125 6,260
650-700 854 714 1,389 866 868 339 0 1,446 6,476
700-750 2,098 1,474 1,500 2,182 4,201 98 0 1,446 12,999
750-800 1,845 2,060 915 1,039 2,028 154 0 1,069 9,111
800-850 2,925 2,696 2,943 3,087 2,541 103 31 1,519 15,844
850-900 1,473 847 3,731 3,931 1,465 22 369 2,063 13,902
900-950 4,049 1,665 2,902 2,523 2,609 6 802 1,094 15,651
950-1000 63 88 248 106 2 0 7 12,086 12,599
1000-1050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,525 9,525
1050-1100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,205 14,205
Total 15,079 14,236 15,841 16,103 14,735 1,223 1,209 51,664 130,090
Table 48 - Summary of PDT Stratification of the Project Area

Page 110 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Peat carbon stock

Based on the Ministry of Agriculture, the total peatland area in Indonesia is 14.9 million Ha. The
peatland area in Riau Province is about 26% of the total peatlands of Indonesia 38 39 estimated the
carbon stock in the peatland in Riau in the range from 5.35 to 16.23 Gt C (19.6 to 59.6 Gt CO 2-eq),
and the medium estimate is 11.11 Gt C (40.8 Gt CO 2-eq).

This author used Carbon density (Cd) value of 52.08 Kg C m 3 of peat for estimating carbon stock in
Riau Province. This was derived from bulk density estimate for peat of 0.093 g.cm -3 and peat carbon
content of 56%40 41 42.

Project equation 4 is from Warren (2017). The formula used to calculate carbon stock in peat (C peat)
is as follows:

𝐶𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑡 = 𝑉 ∗ 𝐶𝑑 (Source: Warren et al. 2017) (4)

Where: Cpeat = carbon stock in peat (kg C)

V = peat volume (m 3) or peat area (m2) * peat depth (m)

Cd = carbon density (Kg C m-3), a product of bulk density and carbon content

Cd for Riau = 52.08 Kg C m-3

Peat Depth
Peat Depth (cm) Area (ha) Volume (m3) Carbon Stock (tonnes C)
Class (SNI)

350-400 190 7,133,289 371,502

Deep Peat 400-450 1,776 75,493,330 3,931,693 9,671,470
450-500 2,170 103,077,496 5,368,276
500-550 3,650 191,622,099 9,979,679
550-600 5,732 329,596,626 17,165,392
Very Deep 70,285,576
600-650 6,260 391,235,013 20,375,519
650-700 6,476 437,115,691 22,764,985
700-750 12,999 942,397,355 49,080,054
750-800 9,111 706,068,634 36,772,054
800-850 15,844 1,307,104,008 68,073,977
Extremely Very 850-900 13,902 1,216,443,095 63,352,356
487,029,188
Deep 900-950 15,651 1,447,759,936 75,399,337
950-1000 12,599 1,228,393,719 63,974,745
1000-1050 9,525 976,326,199 50,847,068
1050-1100 14,205 1,527,065,972 79,529,596
Total 130,090 10,886,832,462 566,986,235
Table 49- Peat carbon stock in the project area at the project start

Page 111 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The combined carbon stock of the Project Area for above ground biomass from trees and below ground
carbon stock from peat is estimated to be 574,754,394 tonnes of carbon.

Stratification of Drained Peat and Non-Drained Peatland

Identification of canal locations43

Not all the Project Area has been drained, only those areas where canals have been established prior
to commencement of the project have been drained.

Satellite imagery and ground-truthing activity in the RER Project Area has shown that there are 146 km
of legacy canals from prior selective logging operations. Both legal and illegal logging activities took
place on the Kampar and in the RER Project area. Earth observation systems clearly show the tell-tale
straight lines of the canals and rails. The rails were often used to bring sawn logs to the canals and
radiate out from the canals, as shown in Map 22 and the SMN block in as outlined by the blue oval.

Map 22- Canals and kuda kuda Rail Systems: Canals are coloured; extensive rail system circled in red in PT. TBOT; blue
circle shows rail systems radiating from canals in PT. SMN

These railways, or tram lines, are the remnants of past (hand logging systems) activities. In the TBOT
concession, there are clear indications of rail lines that were not used in conjunction with canals but as
the primary method of transporting the logs towards the Kampar River. The red oval highlights these
extensive rail systems. Typically, wooden rail systems were used in low-cost operations, but metal rails

Page 112 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

were also used, including in the RER Project area as can be seen from Figure 22. These old disused rail
lines continue to be in situ and show up in remote sensing imagery. They should not be confused with
the mapped legacy canals.

Figure 22- a.) Kuda kuda rails from logging activity, circa 2007 b.) Metal rails in TBOTcirca 2007, and c.) Close-up of the
2007 TBOT sign.

A map of the areas with the location of these "legacy" canals at the commencement of the Project is
shown in Map 23 below.

Page 113 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 23- Maps of canal buffer boundaries, location of legacy canals and planned damming operations by year

Estimation of drained peatland area

The total length of the legacy canals at the commencement of the Project was 146 km. The canals are
assumed to have drained an area of approximately 300m on either side, see; Evans et al (2019). Rates
and spatial variability of peat subsidence in Acacia plantation and forest landscapes in Sumatra,
Indonesia. Geoderma 338, p 410–421. The drained areas around the canal at the program
commencement are shown in Map 23 above. The estimated area of drained and undrained land at
project commencement is shown in Table 50 below.

No. Drainage status Hectares (ha) %

1 Drained 9,106 7.0
2 Undrained 120,984 93.0
3 Total 130,090 100.0
Table 50- Final drained area stratification summary of the project area

The baseline scenario assumes these "legacy canals" would be replaced by plantation management
canals. In the baseline, the drained area expands substantially until the plantations are fully
developed.

Under the Project, dams have been created to block the canals and raise the water table and rewet the
peatlands (the opposite of what happens in the baseline). The location of existing Project dams
established between 201644 and 2019 plus planned dams for 2020-2022 are shown in Map 24. A
more detailed description of the canal blocking for the baseline and project scenarios is described in
chapter 4.

Page 114 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 24 – Boundary map of drained areas at project commencement

Baseline Reference Area

The Project has identified a deforestation rate for the baseline by using a proxy reference area based
on the allowed Proxy reference approach of VMD0006 BL-PL section 1.3. The reference area is made
up of 6 nearby concessions (all on the Kampar Peninsula), where similar plantation conversion activity
has occurred in the Baseline Period. See section 4.1.1 of the PD for more details regarding the proxy
area approach for calculating Baseline Emissions. Below is a map of the Baseline Reference Area
based on the proxy areas.

Page 115 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 25 - Baseline Reference Area

Definition of REDD and WRC Boundaries

REDD boundaries

The three deforestation and forest degradation avoiding project activities identified in VM0007 V1.6
and AUDD, AD and APD. For this project, AUDD and AD activities are not included for reasons specified
in section 1.

The project only includes Avoiding Planned Deforestation (APD) and applies to all forested land within
the plantation development (“development area”) within the geographical boundaries of the project.
The APD boundaries are generated by intersecting the forest area stratification boundaries with the
planned plantation development boundaries and identifying all areas of forest subject to planned
deforestation.

Page 116 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 26- Boundary map of the REDD project activity within the Project boundaries

The REDD is 78,425 ha, of which 78,396 ha was covered in forest for the 10-year period prior to
commencement of the project.

REDD and Non-REDD Areas within Plantation Development Area

Block Non-REDD REDD Total
PT GAN 0 6,480 6,480
PT GCN 24 17,516 17,541
PT SMN 2 21,234 21,236
PT TBOT 3 33,166 33,169
Total 29 78,396 78,425
Table 51- REDD and Non-REDD Areas within Plantation Development Area

The Total Area of Deforestation, Aplanned,i (BL-PL), from Avoiding Planned Deforestation (APD) under the
project is estimated to be 78,396 ha

WRC boundaries

The area within the geographic boundaries consists entirely of lands that are permanently saturated in
their natural state. This meets the definition of wetlands as described in IPCC 2006 Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 7 Wetlands.

The all soils within the Project boundary are peatlands, which are organic soils greater than 50cm in
depth, as classified by the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA)’s as defined in the Indonesian National
Standard (SNI) 7925 regarding peatland mapping (National Standardization Agency, 2013). Therefore,

Page 117 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

the entire landscape within the Project geographical boundaries are classified as wetlands with
peatland soil. The area is located outside of the tidal zone and is not classified as “tidal wetlands”,
rather the whole of the area within the geographic of the project are classified as “peatland”.

From the commencement of the baseline period to the project start date (2006-2016), parts of the
area within the geographic boundary were drained by canals that had been developed prior to 2006.
These historical canals are referred to as “legacy canals”. During the 2006-2016 period, no further
canal construction was observed.

The drainage status of the lands at the commencement of the project are summarized below:

Not drained by legacy

Concession
Drained by legacy canals canals Total
PT GAN 793 35,732 36,525
PT GCN 2981 17,142 20,123
PT SMN 3339 29,437 32,776
PT TBOT 1993 38,673 40,666
Total 9106 120,984 130,090
Table 52- Drainage status of lands at project commencement

WRC Activity Types

The WRC activities include:

1. RWE: Rewetting / restoration of all areas drained by legacy canals. Under the project scenario,
all drained areas will be restored, principally by damming of the legacy canals, which will result
in stopping of drainage though the canal and a virtual return to natural water flow systems. The
areas of this WRC activity are derived directly from the drained peatland stratification
boundary.
2. CIW: Avoided peatland drainage associated with avoided planned plantation development.
Under the baseline scenario, canals will be established to support land clearing and plantation
management resulting in complete drainage of the planned plantation development area. The
CIW boundaries are generated by intersecting the planned plantation development boundaries
and the RWE boundaries and identifying all undrained areas subject to planned deforestation.
The total areas of RWE and CIW activities are shown in the table below:

WRC Categories Area (ha)

RWE 9106.4
CIW 71,773.1
Does not qualify for WRC 49,210.4
Total 130,089.9
Table 53- Total areas of RWE & CIW activities

Page 118 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

REDD / WRC activity boundaries

The project area has been classified into WRC categories as follows45:
Baseline Scenario
WRC
Pre-project Project Activities Area (ha)
Land cover Categories
condition
Non-forest with planned Peatland rewetting and
RWE 24.5
plantation development restoration
Non-forest with no
Peatland rewetting and
planned plantation RWE 90.0
restoration
development
Drained
Peatland rewetting and
peatland
Forest with planned restoration combined
RWE+REDD 6,627.8
deforestation with avoiding
deforestation
Forest with no planned Peatland rewetting and
RWE 2,364.1
deforestation restoration
Non-forest with planned
Avoiding drainage CIW 5.1
plantation development
Non-forest with no Does not
planned plantation Non-development qualify for 1,169.2
development WRC
Undrained
Avoiding drainage
peatland Forest with planned
combined with avoiding CIW+REDD 71,768.0
deforestation
deforestation
Does not
Forest with no planned Conservation of the
qualify for 48,041.2
deforestation forest area
WRC
Total area 130,089.9
Table 54- REDD / WRC activity boundaries

Together the project area encompasses 4 WRC and combined categories:

WRC category Area (ha)

RWE 2,478.6
RWE+REDD 6,627.8
CIW 5.1
CIW+REDD 71,768.1
Not eligible for WRC 49,210.4
Total 130,090.0
Table 55- Classification of WRC categories of project area

Page 119 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The map of all 4 WRC and combined categories project activities is shown below.

Map 27- Boundary map of all 4 WRC combined categories and project activities

Page 120 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Temporal boundary
The temporal boundaries of the RER Project are as follows.

• 10-year Historical reference period: 01 January 2006 to 31 December 2015

• 57-year Project crediting period: 17 June 2016 to 23 July 2072
• Baseline update period: Every 10 years
• Duration of Monitoring Periods: Monitoring will occur at least every five years but may occur
as frequently as annually. The actual validation monitoring periods will however always be in
annual increments but may be pro-rated (by month or day) depending on what part of the
year the actual monitoring for verification takes place.

Carbon pools
Carbon Pools Included in the Project

Table 56 describes carbon pools included in the RER Project.

Carbon Pool In/excluded Justification

Above-ground tree biomass Included Mandatory pool in REDD project activities
Above-ground non-tree Excluded Non-tree biomass carbon pool is expected to increase in the
biomass project scenario compared to the baseline, and therefore can be
conservatively omitted.
Belowground biomass Included Carbon stock in this pool is expected to increase in the project
scenario compared to the baseline.
Litter on mineral soil Excluded It is conservatively excluded. However, litter carbon pools and their
stock changes may be monitored in the future.
Litter on peatland Excluded This pool is not mandatory for peatland. As the litter carbon pool is
expected to increase in the project scenario compared to the
baseline, it is therefore conservatively omitted.
Dead wood Excluded This pool is not mandatory for either mineral soil or peatland. As
the dead wood carbon pool is expected to increase in the project
scenario compared to the baseline, it is therefore conservatively
omitted.
Mineral soil carbon pool Excluded This carbon pool does not exist with the project boundary and thus
omitted as emissions are de minimus.
Peat carbon pool Included Carbon stock in this pool is expected to increase in the project
scenario compared to the baseline.
Wood products Excluded This pool is mandatory only where the process of deforestation
involves timber harvesting for commercial markets.
Table 56- Summary of carbon pools

Carbon Pool Significance

Most exclusions were implemented on the basis of conservatism which is permitted under VM0007.
No significance tests were necessary because, as described in the above Sub-subsection, all
carbon pools not included in the baseline and project scenario have been shown either to increase
more or decrease less in the Project relative to the baseline scenario or in the alternative, they have
been conservatively excluded. The Project has included all mandatory carbon pools, and all other
required sources of GHG emissions have either been included or conservatively excluded.

Page 121 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Mineral soil carbon pool was excluded because this carbon pool does not exist within the project
boundary. Because mineral soil carbon is estimated to be zero, the relative contribution (RE%) is
estimated as zero and less than the 5% threshold of the total terrestrial carbon pool as specified in
T-SIG, and its exclusion is explicitly permitted by the methodology

Sources of GHG Emissions

Table 57 describe sources of GHG emissions included in the RER Project.

Source Gas Included? Justification/explanation

Deforestation CO2 Yes Above-ground biomass losses as a result of deforestation are

included

Forest CO2 Yes If forest degradation occurs in the project scenario, it will be
degradation accounted for. Values will be calculated using forest
degradation emission factors.

Biomass CO2 No Above-ground biomass losses as a result of fire are

burning conservatively assumed zero (see comment below)

CH4 No Above-ground biomass losses as a result of fire are

conservatively assumed zero (see comment below)

N 2O No Above ground biomass losses as a result of fire are

conservatively assumed zero (see comment below)

No fires have been observed in the baseline to date and fire is assumed to be zero
in the baseline and GHG from fires are conservatively omitted.
Because measured biomass burning is zero, the relative contribution (RE%) is
estimated as zero and less than the 5% threshold of the biomass pool as specified
in T-SIG.

Combustion of CO2 No Combustion of fossil fuels is not included (see comment

fossil fuels below)

CH4 No Combustion of fossil fuels is not included (see comment

below)

N 2O No Combustion of fossil fuels is not included (See comment

below)

Combustion of fossil fuels is not included and CO2 from combustion of fuels is
conservatively omitted as permitted under VM0007.

Use of CO2 No Potential emissions are negligible and are excluded as per
fertilisers VM0007.
Baseline scenario

CH4 No Potential emissions are negligible and are excluded as per

VM0007.

N 2O No Acacia species are nitrogen fixing species and no

nitrogenous fertilizers are used in Acacia plantation
management. N2O emissions from fertilizer applications are

Page 122 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Source Gas Included? Justification/explanation

excluded in baseline scenario. Conservatively omitted as

permitted under VM0007.
Because measured nitrogenous fertilizer use is zero, the
relative contribution (RE%) is estimated as zero and less
than the 5% threshold of the pool as specified in T-SIG.

Microbial CO2 Yes All drained peatland is considered a CO 2 emissions source.

decomposition However, Emissions from peat exposed to aerobic
decomposition by spreading or piling following the
establishment or maintenance of ditches are conservatively
be omitted as per BL-PEAT – Section 5.3.

Initially, IPCC default factors will be used for the baseline

and Project to estimate emissions, later in the project
measurements will be performed to develop site-specific
emission models, and if needed, in the reference regions for
the baseline

CH4 Yes IPCC default factors will be used to estimate CH4 emissions
in the baseline and Project. All drained peatland is
considered a CH4 emissions source. However, emissions
from peat exposed to aerobic decomposition by spreading or
piling following the establishment or maintenance of ditches
are conservatively be omitted as per BL-PEAT – Section 5.3.

N 2O No Excluded as per applicability condition in module BL-PEAT

Water bodies CO2 No All organic carbon lost in waterways is recorded as DOC.

DOC Yes DOC values for 'drained' and 'undrained' peatlands (IPCC)
are used to calculate the differences in carbon losses
between baseline and Project.

CH4 No CH4 emissions from water bodies are included

N 2O No N2O emissions from water bodies are included

Table 57- GHG sources included in the REDD project boundary

Baseline Scenario
The baseline scenario of the RER-Carbon Project, its justification and key assumptions is set forth in
detail in §3.5 Additionality below as part of the description of the “Combined Tool to Identify the
Baseline Scenario and Demonstrate Additionality. The baseline scenario of the Project is industrial
plantation of Acacia crassicarpa as described in §3.5 below. Additional background details of
historical land use in Riau Province supporting the baseline scenario are set forth below, as well as
a brief description of how the Baseline Scenario of Acacia plantation activity would have been
implemented.

Page 123 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The difference between peat carbon stock in the project scenario and the baseline scenario at
t=100 is estimated as follows. Project equations 5 to 9 are from equations 5 to 9 of VMD0016 X-
STR.

Page 124 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Step 1. Under the baseline scenario, successive changes of peat carbon stock within each stratum
were calculated over 100 years. (see Table 58) The method for calculating the dynamics of carbon
stock over time under the baseline scenario is given in § 3.4

Step 2. Under the project scenario, successive changes of peat carbon stock within each stratum
were calculated over 100 years. (see Table 58). The method for calculating the dynamics of carbon
stock over time under the project scenario is given in § 3.4.

The differences in peat carbon stocks are shown in Table 58 below:

Area peat at t=100

Peat Depth Area peat at t=100 project
Peat Depth baseline
Class (SNI) Carbon stock (t Area Carbon stock (t
(cm) Area (ha)
C) (ha) C)
Non-peat 0-50 32 4,161 0 0
50-100 367 143,317 0 0
Slightly
100-150 1,423 926,179 0 0
Shallow
150-200 3,576 3,258,790 0 0
200-250 4,761 5,578,428 0 0
Shallow
250-300 4,967 7,114,351 0 0
300-350 8,159 13,809,299 0 0
350-400 10,307 20,130,362 190 371,502
Deep
400-450 13,052 28,888,416 1,776 3,931,693
450-500 14,192 35,109,271 2,170 5,368,276
500-0550 15,067 41,197,167 3,650 9,979,679
550-600 8,372 25,071,831 5,732 17,165,392
Very Deep
600-650 1,362 4,432,894 6,260 20,375,519
650-700 1,446 5,083,371 6,476 22,764,985

Page 125 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

700-750 1,446 5,459,528 12,999 49,080,054

750-800 1,069 4,315,755 9,111 36,772,054
800-850 1,519 6,526,142 15,844 68,073,977
850-900 2,063 9,399,796 13,902 63,352,356
Extremely
Very Deep 900-950 1,094 5,270,544 15,651 75,399,337
950-1000 12,086 61,369,648 12,599 63,974,745
1000-1050 9,525 50,847,068 9,525 50,847,068
1050-1100 14,205 79,529,596 14,205 79,529,596
Total 130,090 413,465,913 130,090 566,986,235
Table 58- Differences in peat carbon stocks

The table above demonstrates that there is significant depletion of peat in terms of carbon stock
which is greater than 5%.

Step 3. All areas that show a positive peat carbon stock difference between the baseline and
project scenarios at t=100 was delineated as the area eligible for crediting.

Eligible areas for crediting from WRC activities, based on the spatial analysis, is 78,425 ha or 66%.
The area eligible for crediting is identical to the plantation development area.

Area
Description
(ha) (percent)
Project area 130,090 100%
Peatland area within the project
130,090 100%
boundary
Area eligible for crediting 78,425 60%
Area not eligible for crediting 51,664 40%
Table 59- Summary of the area eligible for crediting from WRC activities

History of Land Use Change in Riau in the Pre-Baseline and Baseline Period
Historical data on industrial Acacia plantation concessions in Riau exhibits a similar pattern from
1990 to 2010; large areas of the Production Forest Estate, being split up and licensed to a range of
companies producing similar commodities. Each is managing an area on average, <70,000 ha. In
Riau Province, 1,587,000 ha of land has been allocated for forest plantation concessions (IUPHHK-
HT a.k.a. HTI), of which 68% is in peatlands.

Within the context of the Kampar peninsula, Acacia plantations are the dominant type of forestry
activity. By 2014, 294,227 ha, or nearly 43% of the peninsula, had been converted to feedstock
plantations, of which Acacia accounted for 31% of the Kampar peninsula and nearly 72% of the
allowable plantation area46. Acacia plantations surrounds the RER-Carbon Project Area.

All of the current Acaia plantation operations on the Kampar, as they are part of the Production
Forest estate, were once selective logging concessions and then legally converted to industrial
plantation estates as allowed by Indonesian law47. Government Regulation 6/2007 at Article 38,

Page 126 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

section 1 states explicitly that utilisation of the timber forest products includes the utilisation of a
silviculture system and section 2 discusses how that is done by way of "land preparation, seeding,
planting, maintenance, harvesting, and marketing. Sect-3 specifically indicates that the "utilisation
of timber forest product in HTI is done in unproductive production forest."

Below at table 60 is an overview of all of the HTI concessions in Riau, the size of their concessions
and the percentage on peat versus mineral soils.

Company Land Area

Total Mineral Soil Peat Soil
CV ALAM LESTARI 4,790 0 4,790
CV BHAKTI PRAJA MULIA 5,854 0 5,854
CV HARAPAN JAYA 5,054 0 5,054
CV MUTIARA LESTARI 3,970 79 3,891
CV PUTRI LINDUNG BULAN 2,100 2,100 0
KUD BINA JAYA LANGGAM 1,908 601 1,307
PT. ARARA ABADI 298,124 146,591 151,532
PT. ARTELINDO WIRATAMA 10,232 10,232 0
PT. BALAI KAYANG MANDIRI 16,184 0 16,184
PT. BINA DAYA BENTALA 20,085 0 20,085
PT. BINA DAYA BINTARA 7,696 0 7,696
PT. BINA DUTA LAKSANA 24,661 0 24,661
PT. BUKIT BATU HUTANI ALAM 32,510 0 32,510
PT. BUKIT BATUBUH SEI INDAH 14,604 14,604 0
PT. BUKIT RAYA PELALAWAN 3,896 0 3,896
PT. CITRA SUMBER SEJAHTERA 15,423 15,423 0
PT. EKAWANA LESTARI DARMA 9,485 0 9,485
PT. LESTARI ASRI JAYA 24 24 0
PT. MADUKORO 14,872 0 14,872
PT. MERBAU PELALAWAN LESTARI 6,472 1,146 5,326
PT. MITRA HUTANI JAYA 9,689 0 9,689
PT. MITRA KEMBANG SELARAS 14,737 861 13,876
PT. MITRA TANI NUSA SEJATI 7,617 0 7,617
PT. NUSA PRIMA MANUNGGAL 4,242 3,436 806
PT. NUSA WANA RAYA 25,374 25,374 0
PT. NUSANTARA SENTOSA RAYA (DH.SIAK RY TBR) 22,816 19,466 3,350
PT. PERANAP TIMBER (DH. PTUNISERAYA) 32,831 0 32,831
PT. PERAWANG SUKSES PERKASA 54,459 54,459 0
PT. PERKASA BARU 13,139 0 13,139
PT. PUTRA RIAU PERKASA 16,594 0 16,594
PT. RIAU ABADI LESTARI 15,554 14,079 1,474
PT. RIAU ANDALAN PULP & PAPER 338,946 131,906 207,040
PT. RIAU INDO AGROPALMA 9,671 0 9,671
PT. RIMBA LAZUARDI 20,862 20,862 0
PT. RIMBA MANDAU LESTARI 5,604 0 5,604
PT. RIMBA MUTIARA PERMAI 8,069 0 8,069
PT. RIMBA PERANAP INDAH 14,160 14,160 0
PT. RIMBA ROKAN LESTARI 11,345 0 11,345
PT. RUAS UTAMA JAYA 40,369 0 40,369
PT. SARI HIJAU MUTIARA 16,854 11,895 4,959
PT. SATRIA PERKASA AGUNG (SK 19) 10,235 0 10,235
PT. SATRIA PERKASA AGUNG (SK 244) 76,898 278 76,620
PT. SATRIA PERKASA AGUNG UNIT (SK 102) 11,867 0 11,867

Page 127 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. SEKATO PRATAMA MAKMUR 46,087 0 46,087

PT. SELARAS ABADI UTAMA 24,742 63 24,679
PT. SERAYA SUMBER LESTARI 19,850 0 19,850
PT. SINAR BELANTARA INDAH 472 472 0
PT. SUMATERA RIANG LESTARI 152,822 2,921 149,901
PT. SUMATERA SILVA LESTARI 8,293 8,293 0
PT. SUNTARA GAJAPATI 34,811 0 34,811
PT. TRIOMAS FDI 9,687 0 9,687
PT. TUAH NEGERI 1,587 0 1,587
PT. WANANUGRAHA BINALESTARI 8,030 8,030 0
PT. WIRA KARYA SAKTI 1,604 1,096 508
Total 1,587,862 508,451 1,079,411
Percentage 100% 32% 68%
Source: KLHK website
Table 60- List of HTI companies in Riau Province as of 2019.

During the baseline timeframe (2006-2015), there was intense competitive pressure on the forests
to convert unproductive logging concessions to industrial plantations to be used as feedstock for
the three very large-scale pulp and paper mills in eastern Riau: Indah Kiat Pulp & Paper, Andritz
Pulp & Paper and PT. Riau Pulp & Paper; all located adjacent to the Kampar Peninsula.

Although other land-use activities take place on the Kampar Peninsula before and during the
baseline period, such as industrial oil palm plantations, small-holder oil palm plantations, minimal
selective logging, and some very limited agriculture activities by small-holders / local communities,
they are not credible baseline activities. This is mainly due to the legal status of the Production
Forest; it is not legally applicable to be used for oil palm and agriculture activity. Continued selective
logging is also not a credible alternative. The selective logging concessions become unproductive
over time and after they have been logged over. This occurs in the pre-baseline and baseline period.

Additional historical information concerning the land-use history of Riau and the Kampar Peninsula,
the credibility of the alternatives and a detailed legal analysis of the alternatives can be found in
step 1 of the additionality analysis in §3.5 below.

Industrial Acacia plantations are a very commercially viable activity in the Kampar Peninsula,
primarily because there are, as noted above, three large scale pulp and paper mills that create
large scale demand for feedstock.

Conversion of Production Forest Estate from selective logging to industrial plantation was
widespread during the pre-baseline and baseline period. In fact, one of the four concession, PT
GCN, formerly by PT Agam Sempurna, had already been converted to an HTI license in 2004. In the
2007/2008 timeframe, PT TBOT was still a selective logging concession, but its activity was winding
down because it was no longer a productive concession; it was not profitable.

In 2010/2011, the Project Proponent was aware that there was an application for the PT. GCN
(formerly by PT Agam Sempurna) by PT. Surya Alam Perkasa to the Ministry of Forestry to acquire
that concession to be used as HTI, as allowed by Indonesian law. This application was made before
APRIL asked the Ministry of Forestry to acquire PT. GCN as an ER concession. The request for the

Page 128 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

HTI license for PT. Surya Alam Perkasa was rejected and subsequently APRIL48 requested an ER
license.

Implementation of the Baseline Scenario

The Project Proponent believes that the baseline scenario of the four concessions would have been
that they would be acquired as HTI licenses, cleared for and planted with Acacia. The peat
landscape would have required the construction of necessary infrastructure such as roads, canals,
drainage canals, water table management systems, camp infrastructure, etc.

It is assumed that acquisition of all of the concession in a relatively similar time frame would have
allowed a plantation development plan that allowed for the development of the concessions over a
seven-year period with a 5-year harvesting regime. Following Indonesian forestry law and
regulations, it would result in an estimated 78,425 hectares of land developed into plantation and
infrastructure and the protection of 51,664 hectares of land for non-production. It is assumed that
all-natural forest on the development areas would be cleared and drained for plantation
development. This would result in considerable land-use change, as shown in Table 61 and Table
62 below. A map showing the yearly development blocks of the baseline scenario is shown in Map
29. The water table management systems would have led to the ongoing drainage of the plantation
areas and widespread loss of peat through oxidation and subsidence.

APRIL's plantation management teams created the land use change and the plantation
development scenario that is the foundation of the Baseline Scenario and described in Table 61
and 61 by applying their substantial expertise in plantation development. They followed APRIL's
standard plantation development models as well as all required Indonesia forestry regulations.

The Project Proponent believes that the deforestation rate would have been comparable to what
took place in the Kampar Peninsula under the baseline scenario. A detailed analysis of the
projected deforestation rate of 8.24% is set forth below in §4.1.2.

Page 129 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Land Cover 2022

Dense Medium Sparse
Block Land Cover Type Acacia Peat Dome Bare Water
Total Swamp Swamp Swamp
Plantation Forest Land Body
Forest Forest Forest
Acacia Plantation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peat Dome Forest 22,770 19 22,751 0 0 0 0 0
PT. Dense Swamp Forest 1,086 934 0 152 0 0 0 0
GAN Medium Swamp Forest 9,306 3,155 0 0 6,151 0 0 0
Sparse Swamp Forest 3,342 2,373 0 0 0 969 0 0
Bare Land 22 0 0 0 0 0 22 0
Acacia Plantation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dense Swamp Forest 10,435 8,799 0 1,636 0 0 0 0
PT. Medium Swamp Forest 7,221 6,505 0 0 716 0 0 0
GCN Sparse Swamp Forest 2,421 2,213 0 0 0 209 0 0
Bare Land 46 24 0 0 0 0 22 0
Water Body 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Acacia Plantation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dense Swamp Forest 5,979 3,892 0 2,087 0 0 0 0
PT. Medium Swamp Forest 23,775 15,056 0 0 8,719 0 0 0
SMN Sparse Swamp Forest 2,992 2,286 0 0 0 706 0 0
Bare Land 11 2 0 0 0 0 9 0
Water Body 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
Acacia Plantation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dense Swamp Forest 978 904 74 0 0 0 0 0
Medium Swamp Forest 1,788 1,512 0 276 0 0 0 0
PT.
Sparse Swamp Forest 23,026 19,656 0 0 3,369 0 0 0
TBOT
Bare Land 13,684 11,094 0 0 0 2,590 0 0
Dense Swamp Forest 1,151 3 0 0 0 0 1,148 0
Water Body 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 40
Total 130,090 78,425 22,825 4,151 18,955 4,474 1,200 59
Land-use change type
Conversion to plantation or infrastructure
No land-use change
Table 61- Baseline Scenario Land use change by block within the project area

Page 130 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Land Cover 2022

Dense Sparse
Land Cover 2016 Peat Dome Medium Swamp
Total Acacia Plantation Swamp Swamp Bare land Water Body
Forest Forest
Forest Forest
Acacia Plantation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peat Dome 23,748 923 22,825 0 0 0 0 0
Dense swamp forest 19,287 15,136 0 4,151 0 0 0 0
Medium swamp forest 63,328 44,372 0 0 18,955 0 0 0
Sparse swamp forest 22,439 17,965 0 0 0 4,474 0 0
Non-Forest 1,230 30 0 0 0 0 1,200 0
Water Body 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 59
Total 130,090 78,425 22,825 4,151 18,955 4,474 1,200 59
Land-use change type
Conversion to plantation or infrastructure
No land-use change
Table 62- Land-use change within the project area under baseline

Page 131 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Additionality

Scope
The assessment and demonstration of additionality and the identification and justification of the
baseline scenario are described herein using the CDM executive board approved additionality tool:

1. A/R Methodological tool “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and
demonstrate additionality in A/R CDM project activities (Version 01) (T-ADD)

as per the instructions within the VM0007 Methodology, version 1.6.

Procedure
According to the additionality tool, the following four out of five steps have been applied.

STEP 0. Preliminary screening based on the starting date of the A/R project activity

STEP 1. Identification of alternative scenarios to the project activity

STEP 2. Barrier analysis

STEP 3. Investment analysis (this step was not required)

STEP 4. Common practice analysis

The procedure is summarized in the indicative flowchart presented in Figure 23. For the specific
detail regarding the individual steps, please refer to the below text.

Page 132 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Figure 23- Path of Analysis chosen by the Project

Page 133 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Justification of the Baseline Scenario and Additionality

Step 0. Preliminar y Screening Based on the Star ting Date of the A/R project activity

Provide evidence that the starting date The Project's start date is 17 June 2016. Additionally, the first
of the project activity was after 31 of the four Ecosystem Restoration (IUPHHK-RE) concession
December 1999 licenses were granted on 24 July 2012. Subsequent licenses
for the other three IUPHHK-RE concession licenses all
occurred in 2014 (18 February, 14 March and 18 September
respectively), see § 1.7- Ownership for further licensing
details. These dates are all after 31 December 1999.
Provide evidence that the incentive from The evidence that the incentive from the planned sale of
the planned sale of emission reductions emission reductions were seriously considered in the decision
was seriously considered in the decision to proceed with the project activity is proved by the § “1.7
to proceed with the project activity. This Ownership”, as the IUPHHK-RE concession licenses (acquired
evidence shall be based on (preferably in 2012 & 2014) explicitly allow for the capture and sale of
official, legal, and/or other corporate) carbon. Further, the Project Owner entered into contractual
documentation that was available to arrangements before the Project start date to undertake
third parties at, or prior to, the start of carbon development activities including a carbon assessment
the project activity. report. The planning of the assessment began in Q4 2014
and preliminary field surveys were conducted during the
months of April-December 201549
Table 63- Preliminary screening based on the starting date of the A/R project activity

STEP 1. Identification of Alternative Land -Use Scenarios to the proposed Project

Activity

This step serves to identify alternative land-use scenarios to the proposed project activity that could
be the baseline scenario through the following sub-steps

Sub-step 1a. Identify credible alternative land-use scenarios to the proposed project activity

The Project was able to identify six (6) possible major credible alternative land-use scenarios that
could have occurred on the land within the Project boundary. They are industrial Acacia plantation,
the continuation of the pre-project activity – commercial selective logging, industrial oil palm
plantation, smallholder oil palm plantation, smallholder oil palm plantation, protected forest without
the benefit of carbon finance ( i.e. National Park or other protected areas), and mineral or fossil fuel
extraction. The scenarios were compiled after a review of current land-use activity in and around the
Kampar Peninsula. The results are the most likely "without project" land-use scenario in the Project
Area and are described below.

Major land-use Scenarios

Alternative 1. Industrial Acacia Plantation

The four concessions are all converted individually or together into fast-growing Acacia crassicarpa
industrial agroforestry plantations and are done according to Indonesian law and Ministry of
Forestry regulations and decrees.

Page 134 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Industrial Acacia planting currently takes place on the Kampar Peninsula and in nearby areas. It is
the most common land-use activity on the Kampar Peninsula and is the second most common land-
use activity in the Province of Riau.

Sectoral Overview

Fast-growing Acacia crassicarpa is a common industrial plantation species, and its use in the pulp
and paper industry as a feedstock forms the backbone of land-use of lowland peatlands land-use in
Indonesia50. Typically, it is grown in 4-to-6-year rotations with the harvested wood products being
used for paper and pulp products. Industrial plantation activities have historically required ongoing
and continuous maintenance of water tables in the peatlands to between 40-80 cm depth51. Areas
of industrial Acacia plantations have grown rapidly in Indonesia over the past decade, and
development was approved by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry development plans: from
10 million ha in 2010 to 13 million ha in 2014 52.

Within the context of Riau Province, and specifically the Kampar peninsula, Acacia plantations are
the dominant type of forestry activity. By 2014, 294,227 ha, or nearly 43% of the peninsula had
been converted to feedstock plantations, of which Acacia accounted for 31% of the Kampar
peninsula and nearly 72% of the allowable plantation area 53. The entire RER-Carbon Project Area is
surrounded by Acacia plantations.

Map 28- Riau Province Spatial Planning Map (2010) showing Hutan Produksi or Production Forest area in yellow

Page 135 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 29- Current (2019) Spatial Planning Map of Pelalawan District showing Hutan Produksi or Production Forest
Area in Purple

The credibility of the proposed land-use scenario of industrial Acacia plantation is supported by the
following seven points (a-g).

No. Source of Credibility Explanation

a. National Forestry Policy The Republic of Indonesia has had as a matter of national forestry policy a written
Basic Forestry Law in place since 1967 (i.e. Law No. 5/1967), and today it is based
upon Forestry Law No. 41/1999. Further forestry regulations and decrees establish
conditions pertaining to the management and use of the production forests for
timber plantations, in particular, are Ministry of Forestry (MoF) Regulation
No.P.19/Menhut-II/2007 and P.62/Menhut-II/2008. Substantial Reformation of the
forestry sector came in 2015 with Ministry of Environment & Forestry (MoEF)
Regulation No. P.32/2015. Presidential Instruction 10/2011 sought to slow
development of concession on peatlands.

However, from 2007, including the baseline period of 2006-2015, there was a 77%
increase of new plantations on peatlands in Riau province primarily on what was
legally considered as secondary forest54. By the timePresidential Instruction
10/2011 to limit the development of new plantation concession on peatland was
instituted, the momentum of plantation development activity was already in
existence.
b. Economic Trends The pulpwood sector in Indonesia in 2014 produced 5.36 million tonnes of
Pulpwood (for the pulp and paper industry), of which Riau Province made up 4.21
million tonnes– much of that was from the Kampar region. Most of Indonesia's
pulpwood production takes place in 4 provinces on the Island of Sumatra. In 2014
75% of Indonesian pulp production was based in Riau Province. By 2018 the pulp
sector had increased in Indonesia to 7.62 million tonnes, of which more than 50%

Page 136 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

was still based in Riau55. In 2014 the total Indonesian paper and pulp industry were
worth USD $2.6 billion, and by 2018 it had grown to USD $6.2 billion 56.
c. Land-use Records The entire RER Carbon Project Area has since more than 10 years prior to the
Project Start Date been designated as hutan produksi, or production forest, See
Map 28 above.
d. Current Land-use The entire RER Carbon Project Area continues to be designated as hutan produksi,
Activity or production forest. See Map 29 above.
e. Past Land-use Activity The four concessions that make up the Project Area were all Hak Pengusahaan
Hutan (HPH) or selective logging concessions in the past. These types of
concessions, in peatlands, after they have been logged over and depleted of
commercial stems, are often converted to industrial plantation activity or Hutan
Tanaman Industri (HTI). That is the case for all of the current HTI concessions in the
region surrounding the Project. Prior to the existence of the IUPHHK-RE license (the
ecosystem restoration license, the only legal option for Hutan Produksi was to
maintain selective logging (HPH) or conduct forestry plantation (HTI) activity).
f. Enforced Mandatory The government of the Republic of Indonesia had in place at the time forestry laws
Regulations and regulations. In 2012-2014, when HTI conversion would have begun on the
Project Area, forestry laws and regulations would have been generally enforced.
Large scale operators, more or less, followed government regulations and
requirements.
g. Common Practice Industrial Acacia plantation activity is by far the most extensive commercial activity
located in the immediate around the RER-CP. The Project Area is surrounded by
similar Acacia plantations, and this land-use activity is the most common activity on
the Kampar Peninsula.
Table 64- Credibility of the proposed land-use scenario of industrial Acacia plantation

Conclusion:

The ongoing expansion of industrial-scale Acacia plantations under the regime of Hutan Tanaman
Industri (HTI) across Indonesia and in Riau Province has already created large areas of converted
peatland forests, demonstrating that industrial Acacia plantation is a credible and realistic scenario
and should be considered as a plausible alternative scenario to the RER Carbon Project.

Alternative 2 - Continuation of the Pre-Project Land-use - Commercial Selective Logging

The four concessions, either individually or together, remain as Hak Pengusahaan Hutan (HPH) for
selective logging. All selective logging is conducted according to Indonesian law and the Ministry of
Forestry regulations and decrees.

Selective logging historically was undertaken on the Kampar Peninsula and in nearby areas. Limited
selective logging continues in the Province of Riau.

Page 137 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 30- Map of active HPH Concessions in Riau Province (2015)

Sectoral Overview

Commercial forestry began to develop in Riau Province rapidly in the late 1970s as east-west
branch roads from the newly completed "Trans-Sumatran Highway" were built. As large areas of land
came under government control just before this time, state-run or private companies began the
development of commercial logging, with 2.6 million hectares of logging concessions designated as
Hak Pengusahaan Hutan (HPH) being granted in 1975. The expansion was rapid, and in 1979 there
was 5.1 million ha of HPH concessions, and by 1987 this had risen to 6.1 million ha. Legally during
those years, selective logging was practiced with diameter limitations on felling; these restrictions
were not always adhered to57.

Today, none of the peatlands in the Kampar Peninsula is subject to active commercial logging.
Selective logging operations continue in a limited manner in Riau Province (i.e. Diamond Raya
Timber in North-East Riau Province). However, many of the commercially valuable large-diameter
trees in Riau were harvested between the '70s and the early 2000s. This is also true of the Kampar
Peninsula.

The credibility of the proposed land-use scenario of commercial selective logging is supported by
the following seven points (a-g).

Page 138 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

No. Source of Credibility Explanation

a. National Forestry Policy The Republic of Indonesia has had a national forestry policy the Basic
Forestry Law in place since 1967 (i.e. Law No. 5/1967), and today it is
based upon Forestry Law No. 41/1999. Further forestry regulations and
decrees establish conditions pertaining to the management and use of
the production forests for selective logging. Reformation of the forestry
sector came in 2015 with the Ministry of Environment & Forestry
(MoEF58) Regulation No. P.32/2015
b. Economic Trends The commercial selective logging industry in the Province of Riau has
been on the decline since before the Project began. In 2014 only 116
million m3 of plywood was produced in Riau Province. And by 2018, that
amount had almost halved to 63.8 m 3 of plywood from the Province59.
c. Land-use Records The entire RER Carbon Project Area has since more than 10 years prior
to the Project Start Date been designated as hutan produksi, or
production forest. See Map 28 above.
d. Current Land-use The entire RER Carbon Project Area continues to be designated as hutan
Activity produksi, or production forest. See Map 29 above.
e. Past Land-use Activity The four concessions that make up the Project Area were all HPH logging
concessions in the past.
g. Common Practice Historically commercial selective logging, before the rise of the pulp and
paper industry, was the dominant forest product in the Province of Riau.
Selective logging existed at the time the Project was acquiring the four
concessions, and when the Project Started in the Province of Riau, its
extent was limited and continues to be so today.
Table 65- Credibility of the proposed land-use scenario of commercial selective logging

Significant changes to the forestry laws and enforcement of the same have made legal and illegal
commercial logging much less feasible. In the past, timber companies were not required to
establish and implement long term management plans ensuring the sustainability of forests. The
forests of Riau were harvested in an unsustainable manner. As a result, the remaining natural
forest areas have little commercially viable timber within allowable diameter sizes. HPH activities
have moved away from the area or have instead shifted to HTI.

Page 139 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Conclusion:

Commercial selective logging remains as a legal possibility, as all the RER-CP concession areas
were designated as HPH before the start of the Project. Commercial selective logging would face
substantial barriers (described below in Step 3). However, in 2012-2014 when the Project was
acquiring its current licenses, selective logging was a credible and realistic scenario and should be
considered as a plausible alternative to the RER Carbon Project.

Alternative 3 - Industrial Oil Palm Plantation

The four concessions, either individually or together, are converted to industrial oil palm
plantations. All of the activities required for oil palm farming and harvesting are done according to
Indonesian regulations and laws.

Sectoral Overview

Large scale industrial oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) plantation is one of the more common non-forest
commodity land-uses of lowland peatlands in all of Indonesia 60, irrespective of the fact that peat
soils are less than ideal for its cultivation, especially as very deep peat is known to have adverse
effects on yields61.

Oil palm expansion has become one of the most notable drivers of deforestation in Indonesia in the
first two decades of the 21st century, mainly to serve the global demand for palm oil products for
oils and biofuels62. It has been estimated that, between 1975 and 2005 alone, around 40 million
ha of forests in Indonesia were converted into oil palm plantations63.

Industrial oil palm expansion has taken place almost exclusively in areas that are outside of the
designated forest estates, which are instead designated as Area Pennggunann Lain (APL) or Other
Land Utilization. Alternatively, oil palm production can take place in forest estates that are slated for
conversion and designated as Hutan Produksi Konversi (HPK) or Conversion Production Forests.
None of the RER-CP is or ever has been designated as APL or HPK.

The credibility of the proposed land-use scenario of industrial oil palm plantation activity is
supported by the following seven points (a-g).

No. Source of Credibility Explanation

a. National Agrarian Policy The Republic of Indonesia has had as a matter of national policy a written
and Related Oil Palm Law Basic Agrarian Practices in place as law since 1960 (i.e. Law No. 5/1960).
Today palm oil concession laws and regulations are based upon
Indonesian Laws No. 39/2014 (regarding Plantations) and Ministry of
Agriculture Regulations No 98/2013(Licensing of Plantations). Further
agriculture regulations and decrees establish conditions pertaining to the
management and use of the palm oil plantations, pricing of CPO products,
etc. Reformation came about in 2014 because of the great potential in
national economic development played by crude palm oil.
b. Economic Trends The world's palm oil production is dominated by Indonesia and Malaysia,
which supply 85-95% of the world's total supply. Indonesia is the world's
largest producer and exporter of palm oil, and it contributed around USD

Page 140 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

$23 Billion in foreign exchange to Indonesia in 201764. Indonesian oil

palm sector grew from 22.5 million tonnes of palm oil in 2010 to 417.7
million tonnes in 202065.
c. Land-use Records The entire RER Carbon Project Area has since more than 10 years prior to
the Project Start Date and has been designated as hutan produksi, or
production forest. See Map 28 above.
d. Current Land-use Activity The entire RER Carbon Project Area continues to be designated as hutan
produksi, or production forest. See Map 29. None of the peat domes on
the Kampar have been converted to oil palm plantations. The average
peat thickness of industrial oil palm directly plantations on the Kampar
Peninsula and surrounding the Project Area is 3.2 m 66. Currently, there is
one Industrial oil palm plantations on the northern boundary of the
Kampar Peninsula. It is approximately 20 km from RER. There are no oil
palm concessions which are adjacent to the RER-Project Area. Processing
facilities are somewhat further away.
e. Past Land-use Activity The four concessions that make up the Project Area were all historically
selective logging concessions in the past.
f. Enforced Mandatory The government of the Republic of Indonesia has in place the above
Regulations agricultural laws and regulations. Large scale operators, more or less,
followed government regulations and requirements.
g. Common Practice In 2015, the Kampar Peninsula, Industrial oil palm plantations covered
35,767 ha or 5.2% of the peninsula and made up 11.9% of the total
plantation area67.
Table 66- Credibility of the proposed land-use scenario of industrial oil palm plantation

Conclusion:

Industrial-scale oil palm plantation is a possibility in the Project area, and it is found nearby to the
Project Area. In theory, the Project Area can produce crude palm oil products, and processing
facilities are not out of reach. Although this type of scenario might face specific barriers (described
below in Step 3), in 2012-2014, when the Project was acquiring its current licenses, it was a
credible and realistic scenario. It should be considered as a plausible alternative to the RER Carbon
Project.

Alternative 4 - Smallholder Oil Palm Plantations

The four concessions either together or separately, either legally or illegally, would convert some or
all of the Project Area to smallholder oil palm production. This type of land-use often includes the
burning of the landscape by the smallholder to prepare for the planting of the oil palm seedlings
and is highly destructive to flora and fauna.

Sectoral Overview

Smallholder oil palm plantations followed in the footsteps of the large-scale plantations, to a great
extent as part of the Transmigrasi policies, and by 2010 about 412,000 households were engaged
in small scale oil palm production in Riau Province. At that same time in 2010, the share of
registered smallholders in Riau province was 73 percent, while those of Central Kalimantan and
East Kalimantan were 14 percent and 23 percent, respectively 68.

Page 141 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The credibility of the proposed land-use scenario of smallholder oil palm plantations is supported by
the following seven points (a-g).

No. Source of Credibility Explanation

a. National Agrarian Policy The Republic of Indonesia has had as a matter of national forestry policy a
and Related Oil Palm Law written Basic Agrarian Practices in place as law since 1960 (i.e. Law No.
5/1960). Today palm oil concession laws and regulations are based upon
Indonesian Laws No. 39/2014 (re Plantations) and Ministry of Agriculture
Regulations No 98/2013(Licensing of Plantations). Further agriculture
regulations and decrees establish conditions pertaining to the management
and use of the palm oil plantations, pricing of CPO products, etc.
Reformation came about in 2014 because of the great potential in national
economic development played by crude palm oil.
b. Economic Trends Indonesia is the world's largest producer and exporter of palm oil, and it
contributed around USD $23 Billion in foreign exchange to Indonesia in
201769. Indonesian oil palm sector grew from 22.5 million tons of palm oil in
2010 to 417.7 million tons in 202070.
c. Land-use Records The entire RER Carbon Project Area has since more than 10 years prior to
the Project Start Date and has been designated as hutan produksi, or
production forest. See Map 28 above.
d. Current Land-use Activity The entire RER Carbon Project Area continues to be designated as hutan
produksi, or production forest. See Map 29. None of the peat domes on the
Kampar have been converted to smallholder oil palm plantations.
Smallholder plantations in the Kampar tend to be differentiated from their
larger industrials neighbours in that they generally are situated closest to
the rivers and at the lowest elevation levels. Peat depth levels on the
smallholder plantations are typically at lower elevations than on peat domes
and typically on shallow peat averaging 2.8 meters71. CPO Processing
facilities are not far from the Project Area.
e. Past Land-use Activity The four concessions that make up the Project Area were all historically
selective logging concessions in the past. There is no history of smallholder
oil palm plantation activity in the actual Project Area, i.e. abandoned or
overgrown plantations.
f. Enforced Mandatory The government of the Republic of Indonesia has in place the above
Regulations agricultural laws and regulations. Smallholder operators do not typically
concern themselves with government regulations and requirements.
g. Common Practice In the Kampar Peninsula, smallholder oil palm production as land-use
consists of 57,862 ha and makes up 7.2% of the peninsular landscape as a
whole and 16.4% of the oil palm plantation area72. In Riau Province, there is
extensive evidence of smallholder oil palm production on former forested
land, converted legally, semi-legally, and illegally. The Tesso Nilo National
Park (former HPH areas converted to a national park) and other older HPH
area in Riau Province have lost substantial forest cover as a result of the
illegal conversion by smallholders to oil palm production. There is also plenty
of legal smallholder production, as land for this type of activity has often
been granted to individual farmers from the local Kabupaten at the district
or regency level.
Table 67- Credibility of the proposed land-use scenario of smallholder oil palm plantations

Conclusion:

Smallholder oil palm plantation is a possibility in the Project area, and it is found nearby to the
Project Area. In theory, the Project Area is able to produce crude palm oil products, and processing
facilities are not out of reach. In 2012-2014, when the Project was acquiring its current licenses,
the above analysis demonstrates that smallholder plantation activity was a credible and realistic
scenario and should be considered as a plausible alternative scenario to the RER Carbon Project.

Page 142 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Alternative 5 - Protected Forests Without the Benefit of Carbon Crediting

The four concessions, either individually or together, are converted from hutan produksi to
protection forests such as a national park or reserve area without the ability to receive finance from
carbon sequestration activity.

Sectoral Overview

Forested areas in Indonesia can legally be protected through the formal creation of a protected
area, although it is not common. The possibility of protection without exploitation is considered
further below.

No. Source of Credibility Explanation

a. National Policy Related to Official government regulations outline the legal framework for
Protected Areas conservation management that is used in Indonesia, such as Law no.
5/1990, which defines a national park, Government Regulations on
Conservation and Protected Areas (Regulation No. 68/1998), and the
Special Directive on the Management of National Parks (attachment to
Decree No. 129/Kpts/DJ-VI/1996), or the 1995 Directive for Determining
the Zonation of a National Park. Implementation is the responsibility of
the Ministry of Forestry through the Directorate General of Forest
Protection and Nature Conservation. New regulations were made with
Ministerial Decree P.19/Menhut-II/2004 on collaborative management of
nature reserves and protected areas and Ministerial Decree P.56/Menhut-
II/2006 on guidelines for zoning of national parks which provide a legal
basis for the allocation of special use zones within national parks.
b. Economic Trends National parks and reserves in Indonesia are maintained as part of the
government's effort to protect the "public good," but the government's
ability to allocate sufficient budget is limited. In 2009 Indonesia, for
example, the government budget for national conservation is low, which is
about USD $2-5 per hectare of NP area73.
c. Land-use Records The entire RER Carbon Project Area has since more than 10 years prior to
the Project Start Date and has been designated as hutan produksi, or
production forest. See Map 28 above.
d. Current Land-use Activity The entire RER Carbon Project Area continues to be designated as hutan
produksi, or production forest. See Map 29 above. None of the peat
domes on the Kampar prior to the initiation of the Project had been
converted to a national park or other protected areas.
e. Past Land-use Activity The four concessions that make up the Project Area were all historically
selective logging concessions in the past. There is no history of protected
areas in the actual Project Area. Examples of national parks do exist
within the Province of Riau.
f. Enforced Mandatory The government of the Republic of Indonesia has in place the above laws
Regulations and regulations concerning national parks and reserves. Although these
areas receive legal status and protection, on the ground enforcement is
often nominal.
g. Common Practice In the Kampar Peninsula there is one national park Zamrud National Park
(31,480 ha) and proclaimed on 22 July 2016) and three small wildlife
reserves Tasik Belat proclaimed in 1999 (2,529 ha), Tasik Besar Serkap
proclaimed in 1986 (3,200 ha) and Tasik Besar proclaimed in 1986
(6,900 ha). In the years prior to the Project, several protected areas have
been created in the Province of Riau, Including the Tesso Nilo National
Park (1000 km2), the Kerumutan Wild Life Sanctuary (120,000 ha), the
Bukit Tiga Puluh National Park (144,000 ha), the Sultan Syarif Kasim
Forest Park (7,000 ha) and of course the largest of them all, Giam Siak

Page 143 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Kecil-Bukit Batu Bioreserve (705,271 ha). See the below Map 31 for
Protected Areas and National Parks in the Province of Riau.
Table 68- Credibility of the proposed land-use scenario of protected forests without carbon crediting

Map 31- Nature Reserves and Conservation Areas in the Province of Riau

Conclusion:

Protection areas without carbon financing exist as a possibility in the Kampar Peninsula. Although
this type of scenario might face certain barriers (described below in Step 3). However, in 2012-
2014, when the Project was acquiring its current licenses, it was a credible and realistic scenario. It
should continue to be considered as a plausible alternative to the RER Carbon Project.

Alternative 6 - Mining and Fossil Fuel Extraction

Some or all of the four concessions would be converted to mining concession or fossil fuel
extraction.

Sectoral Overview
Riau Province contains Indonesia's most significant set of oil fields. The Minas field in the north-
central part of Riau, is the largest oil block in Indonesia. The output from that field alone makes up
20-25% of current annual oil production for the whole of Indonesia. Further, the Rokan block,
Indonesia's second-largest crude oil field by production, is also in Riau province. Formerly a Chevron
concession, it was recently awarded to Pertamina. Pertamina, in early 2019 announced that it had
found additional oil reserves in the Province that will lead to further future production 74. Within the
Kampar Peninsula itself, there are two oil production blocks, the one closest to the Project Area is
exploratory, and a larger one that is further to the North West is producing oil and gas at scale.

Page 144 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Riau Province also undertakes some coal mining production, most of which is used for local energy
production. Most notable is the PT. Samantaka Batubara Concessions (15,000 ha) in the southern
part of the Province in Kabupaten Indragiri Hulu. The mine partly spills across into the bordering
Province of Jambi via open-pit mining. The majority of other mining activity in Riau takes place in
the western highlands.

While there is no mining on the Kampar Peninsula itself, there is some on the nearby Riau islands;
where there are some limited sand mining and bauxite mining operations undertaken at scale.
Furthermore, in areas surrounding the Kampar and throughout other parts of the Province, it is
understood that there is limited artisanal sand, bauxite, gold, and silver mining. These artisanal
operations are limited in scope and are not conducted under any type of government regulations.

The credibility of the proposed land-use scenario is supported by the following seven points (a-g).

No. Source of Credibility Explanation

a. National Policy Related The law governing the mining sector in Indonesia is the Law on Mineral and Coal
to Mining and Fossil Fuel Mining No. 4 of 2009 (The Mining Law). This law replaced the previous mining
Extraction law (Law No. 11 of 1967). The main objective of the current Mining Law is to
support sustainable national development75.
Indonesia's oil and gas sector is regulated mainly by Law No. 22 of 2001
regarding Oil and Natural Gas (the "Oil and Gas Law"). Oil and gas business
activities classified as upstream, i.e. exploration and exploitation, are further
regulated by Government Regulation No. 35 of 2004, as lastly amended by
Government Regulation No. 55 of 2009 regarding Upstream Oil and Natural Gas
Business Activities. Downstream business activities, such as processing,
transportation, storage, and trading, are regulated by Government Regulation No.
36 of 2004 regarding Downstream Oil and Natural Gas Business Activities, as
amended by Government Regulation No. 30 of 2009.

b. Economic Trends Indonesia's mineral reserves are ranked fifth for gold, seventh for copper, sixth
for nickel, second for tin, sixth for bauxite, and 10th for coal 76. With the
significant production of some of the world's most vital commodities, Indonesia
continues to be a key player in the global mining industry.
The fossil fuel sector, and the oil sector, in particular, saw its peak in the early to
late 1990s. Although Indonesia has seen production declines since the early
2000s, oil production has remained steady with the discovery of new fields. In
Riau Province, refining capacity has also become limited as it has not been able
to keep up with production from new fields in the Province.

Page 145 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

c. Land-use Records The entire RER Carbon Project Area has since more than 10 years prior to the
Project Start Date and has been designated as hutan produksi, or production
forest. There are no mining permits on the Kampar or within several hundred
kilometres. There are however two oil fields on the western side of the Kampar;
the Coastal Plains Pekenbaru or CPP block, owned by Chevron (formerly Caltex)
until 2002, and then through a joint venture with PT. Pertamina and the Riau
Province owned company PT. Bumi Siak Pusako (BSP) 77. This was the case at the
time of the licensing of the four concessions. The CCP block has been producing
oil and gas since the 1950's, and numerous wells are located in and around the
Zamrud National Park less than 20 kilometres from the north western boundary
of the Project Area; these are known as the Zamrud field 78. Additionally, an
exploratory unconventional oil and gas field sits directly to the west of the project
area, the Selat Panjang field. This area started oil exploration in 1989, and
limited production commenced in early 1994.

d. Current Land-use Activity The entire RER Carbon Project Area continues to be designated as hutan
produksi, or production forest. See map 29. None of the peat domes on the
Kampar are being mined. There is no exploratory mining being conducted on the
Kampar.
There is, however, substantial fossil fuel extraction that has been in situ since the
1950s in the CPP Block, most notably around Zamrud Lake. Since 1994, limited
production exists in the northern part of the Selat Panjang field (see Map 32
below), this site is limited, and according to company reports produces only an
estimated at 300 bopd. Sugih Energy (the majority stakeholder) estimates that
there are 30 years’ worth of reserves at the Selat Panjang field 79. Other than this
area, there has been no active oil production or exploration of the Kampar, and
according to the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, there are no other
known fossil fuel exploratory blocks in the Project Area 80. Substantial oil
exploration and production in Riau have generally focused on the Rokan, Duri,
and Minas fields in the central north part of the Province.
e. Past Land-use Activity The four concessions that make up the Project Area were all historically selective
logging concessions in the past. There is no known history of mining in the actual
Project Area.
Fossil fuel extraction has been underway since the 1950s, and exploratory
unconventional oil and gas has been under production since 1994 to the west of
the Project Area.
f. Enforced Mandatory Mining is not currently legally permissible in the RER Project Area without a valid
Regulations government license. Industrial-scale mining and fossil fuel extraction licenses are
controlled by a complex set of laws that would restrict the area that can be mined
and which also outline the compensation arrangements which must be paid to
the concession holder (assuming there is one) and to the state.
The above-described laws regulate the mining and fossil fuel extraction
industries. These laws are generally enforced.
g. Common Practice In Riau Province, the vast majority of mining activity takes place in the west of
the Province in the highlands and mountainous regions. There is no mining on
the Kampar Peninsula
There is substantial oil production to the west of the Kampar as part of the South
Sumatra Basin, and there is ongoing limited development directly west of the
Project Area. The vast majority of the Province's fossil fuel extraction, however,
takes place at fields at a significant distance from the Kampar; the most notable
and productive are at the Duri block, the Rokan Block, the Siak Block, and the
Minas blocks, all of which are north-west of the Project Area81. See Map 32.

Table 69- Credibility of the proposed land-use scenario of mining and fossil fuel extraction

Page 146 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 32- Fossil Fuel (oil & gas) production west of the Kampar

Conclusion

Fossil fuel extraction continues to take place in Kampar and is a credible alternative from a land-
use perspective. Mining, however, on an industrial scale is absent from the Kampar Peninsula, and
although common in Riau Province, is not a credible land-use alternative in the Project Area.

Minor Land-use Scenarios – Not Credible

In addition to the above major land-use scenarios, RER-CP has identified several other minor land-
use scenarios, which were also considered, including smallholder agriculture 82, infrastructure
development, industrial aquaculture, eco-tourism, industrial agriculture, i.e. cut-flower production,
tobacco farming, fruit orchards, etc. However, all of these minor scenarios lacked either credibility
or actual precedent at any scale and thus are not further considered in this analysis.

Page 147 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The Outcome of Sub-Step 1a.

The following Alternative Scenarios are deemed to be the most credible and feasible:

Alt. No.: Alternative Scenario: A Credible Scenario

Alternative 1. Industrial Acacia Plantation YES
Alternative 2. Pre-Project Activity – YES
Commercial Selective Logging
Alternative 3 Industrial Oil Palm Plantation YES
Alternative 4. Smallholder Oil Palm Plantations YES
Alternative 5 Protected Forests without the YES
Benefit of Carbon Crediting
Alternative 6 Mining and Fossil Fuel Extraction Mining NO – Fossil Fuels YES
Table 70- Outcome of Sub-Step 1a

The above Alternative Scenarios are deemed to be the most credible land-use activities and most
feasible after conducting the analysis required by Step 1, Sub-step 1a.

Sub-step 1b. Consistency of Credible Land-use Scenarios with Enforced Mandatory Applicable Laws
and Regulations

The above six (6) major land-use scenarios identified under Sub-step 1 are next considered in the
context of the applicability of Indonesian law and related legal regulations. A principal consideration
in this portion of the analysis is that the entire project area had been designated as Hutan
Produksi, or "production forest" by the Indonesian government for many years before the initiation
of the Project and all four of the concessions making up the Project Area were selective logging
concessions designated as Hak Pengusahaan Hutan (or HPH) for selective logging.

Alternative 1. Industrial Acacia Plantation: The four concessions are all converted individually
or together into fast-growing Acacia crassicarpa industrial plantations. The Project Area as
Production Forestry can legally change to Hutan Tanaman Industri (HTI) or industrial forest
plantations.

Alternative 2 - Continuation of the Pre-Project land-use - Commercial Selective Logging: The four
concessions either individually or together, remain as Hak Pengusahaan Hutan (or HPH) for
selective logging.

Alternative 3 - Industrial Oil Palm Plantation: The four concessions, either individually or together,
are converted to industrial oil palm plantations.

Alternative 4 - Smallholder Oil Palm Plantations: The four concessions either together or
separately, either legally or illegally, would convert some or all of the Project Area to smallholder oil
palm production.

Page 148 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Alternative 5 - Protected Forests without the Benefit of Carbon Crediting: The four
concessions either individually or together, are converted from hutan produksi to protection forest
such as a national park without the ability to receive finance from carbon sequestration activity

Alternative 6 – Mining and Fossil Fuel Extraction: Some or all of the four concessions would
be converted to fossil fuel extraction.

The six alternative scenarios are considered with respect to mandatory applicable laws and
regulations.

Alternative Scenario Enforced Regulations

Alternative 1. Industrial This land-use scenario is legal and permissible. It is the most common land-use
Acacia activities on the Kampar Peninsula. Hutan Produksi forest estate can by law
Plantation only be used for HPH, HTI or ecosystem restoration activity. HTI can legally be
done so long as there is adherence to the relevant laws of the Republic of
Indonesia: principally by the Forestry Laws No. 41/1999, 19/2004, the Ministry
of Environment and Forestry Decree No. 31/2014 and a host of related
supporting regulations and decrees.
This land-use activity is currently being conducted legally on the Kampar
Peninsula. Its implementation in the Project area would not have been, a
violation of Indonesian Forestry laws and regulations.
Alternative 2. Commercial This land-use scenario is legal and permissible. It is not currently being
Selective conducted on the Kampar Peninsula. Commercial selective logging, however,
Logging could occur under the original HPH license granted to the four concessions that
make up the Project Area and would be legally permissible. This type of activity
would be principally governed by Forestry Law No. 41/1999, 19/2004, and
subsequent Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry decrees and
regulations.
Alternative 3 Industrial Oil This land-use is not legally permitted as oil palm may not legally be established
Palm on land that has been designated as Hutan Produksi or production forest.
Plantation Although it is not impossible to remove a particular area from the forest estate
under Indonesian law, it could only be done pursuant to regulations that are set
forth under Government Decree PP No. 60/2012. Further, this is only possible
in areas that are designated as Hutan Produksi Konversi (HPK) or "Conversion
Production Forests. This is not the case with the Project Area.
As a result of the legal barrier, this land-use scenario is untenable and, as such,
is excluded from further consideration.
Alternative 4. Smallholder Oil As noted above, oil palm plantations are not legally permitted as oil palm may
Palm not legally be established on land that has been designated as Hutan Produksi
Plantations or production forest. Although some smallholder palm-plantations do exist on
the fringes of the Kampar Peninsula, none exist at the higher elevations of the
project area.
As a result of the legal barrier, it is also untenable and, as such, as an
alternative land-use scenario it is excluded from further consideration.
Alternative 5. Protected Forest land could be legally converted to some type of protected or
Forests Without conservation forest. However, this is a legally complex and challenging process
benefit of that is governed and regulated by a wide variety of laws in Indonesia. The
Carbon likelihood of this process being successful remains fairly low, but it can be done
Crediting legally.
Alternative 6. Mininig & Currently, there is legal fossil fuel extraction on the Kampar Peninsula, and in
Fossil Fuel areas that are close to the Project Area.
Extraction All the extractive activity is done with legal permits from the Ministry of Mining
and Energy, and it is possible to legally acquire new licenses to allow this type
of activity, however unlikely.
Table 71- Six alternative scenarios with respect to mandatory applicable laws and regulations

Page 149 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Conclusion: Alternatives one, two, five, and six all have applicable enforced mandatory
legislation and regulations. Alternative three and four would violate applicable enforced mandatory
legislation and regulations; as such, these alternatives are excluded.

3.6.5.2 Outcome of Sub-Step 1b.

Alternative three & four are non-compliant: As the baseline, alternative three and four,
industrial oil palm production and smallholder oil palm production, do not comply with mandatory
enforced legislation. Although there is substantial non-compliance in regard to smallholder oil palm
plantations, it is not in this part of the Province of Riau. Non-compliance of that sort does not
feature on the Kampar Peninsula in a way that would make it a feasible baseline scenario.
Alternatives three and four are removed from the list of realistic and credible baseline scenarios.

Below is the list of remaining realistic and credible baseline scenarios.

Alt. No. Remaining Realistic and Credible Baseline Scenarios:

Alternative 1. Industrial Acacia Plantation
Alternative 2. Continuation of Pre-Project Activity - Conventional Selective Logging
Alternative 5. Protected Forests Without benefit of Carbon Crediting
Alternative 6. Mining & Fossil Fuel Extraction
Table 72- List of remaining realistic and credible baseline scenarios

As there are four remaining alternative scenarios, the analysis will proceed to Step 2, the Barrier
analysis.

STEP 2. Barriers analysis

STEP 2. Barriers analysis

This step serves to identify barriers and to assess which of the land use scenarios identified in the
sub-step 1b are not prevented by these barriers.

Sub-step 2a: Identification of barriers that would prevent the implementation of at least one
alternative land use scenarios

The RER Project had identified five (5) main barriers that would have prevented the project activity
that was present when the project was initially conceived as a carbon project (before the start date)
and at the time when the Project Owner was working to acquire the newly created IUPHHKE-RE
license for the four concessions.

Barrier 1. Investment Barriers (2011-2015)

At the time when the RER Project was conceived and was planned (i.e. from the acquisition of the
licensing phase to the beginning of the project activities), no other similar (i.e. non VCS AFOLU)
projects had been successfully completed at the time with private finance. Similar activities were
being planned and contemplated. Some were being attempted with private finance (e.g. Infinite
Earth, Orangutan Foundation International and Gazprom supported the Rimba Raya Biodiversity
Reserve REDD Project), and some were being undertaken with grants, and international donor

Page 150 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

funding (i.e. PT. REKI (Hutan Harapan), which began in 2007 and has struggled with funding,
business development and securing the forest from threats). It was widely understood at the time
(2011-2015) that the international voluntary carbon markets were a nascent business model, with
no success stories in Indonesia. After 2012/2013, project financing in Indonesia was challenging to
acquire for REDD+ projects83.

The voluntary carbon markets in 2007-2009 saw its "hey-days", particularly in Indonesia, the years
after the signing of the Bali Accords in 2007. The UNCCC negotiations in subsequent years failed to
produce market-based rules for REDD+ and the talks were mired in technical debates and
disagreements between major actors. Voluntary carbon prices peaked in 2008 at USD $7.3 per
tonne, but only 6 years later in 2014, the average price was USD $3.8/ tonne 84. Voluntary Carbon
prices continued to fall in 2015 to USD $3.26/ tonne. In 2016 prices were at USD $3.10/ tonne and
prices have hovered at slightly above USD $3/tonne since then 85. The regulated carbon sector
under the UN CDM scheme saw even more significant drops with prices had peaked to nearly EUR
€30/tonne in 2008 and plunged to the rock bottom price of EUR €0.12/tonne by mid-2014. By
2011 and 2012, private equity investments in forest carbon projects were becoming difficult to
source. By the time the RER Project received its licenses, there was limited appetite for investment
into forest carbon projects. As noted above, the price of carbon had also substantially dropped in
value so that in the voluntary carbon space such that institutional financing was difficult to source;
project money dried up. There was little appetite for forestry projects, with or without carbon.

Additionally, debt funding for a forest project without viable commercial revenue was not available,
both in the international markets nor by Indonesian banks. When the RER Project was acquiring its
license in 2012-2014, no Indonesian or international bank was willing to fund forestry projects with
no projected revenue; after nearly five years of concerted efforts by a variety of project developers
in Indonesia, the REDD+ space was littered with failed projects and not a single REDD+ credit had
originated. Banks and institutional lenders saw forest projects as a dead-end with no future.

Conclusion. The RER Project, along with the strong downward trend in the voluntary carbon
markets, faced significant financial barriers as it was not able to access traditional project funding
and did not have access to regular debt funding from banks or commercial lending institutions. A
forestry project with no carbon crediting would be unable to acquire capital.

Barrier 2. Institutional Barriers

Institutional barriers in Indonesia, such as competing land rights and bureaucratic processes acted
as substantial institutional barriers.

Conclusion. Institutional barriers existed in Indonesia that made the implementation of REDD+
projects unpredictable from a business perspective.

Barrier 3. Technological Barrier (2011-15)

Page 151 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Undertaking REDD+ type projects that effectively could reduce carbon emission, either with or
without the origination of carbon credits, was a difficult process in Indonesia. Carbon accounting
and the science of how to apply it was initially at a low level in the period after the COP 13 and
through 2015. There was no approved methodology to reduce carbon emissions available at the
time the project was being licensed. The only two applicable peat methodologies to Indonesia,
VM00027 (July 2014) were, and VM0007's (March 2015) only became approved after the RER
Project became licensed. At the time of the Project's start date, both were untried and had not
resulted in a validated project.

Local knowledge of REDD+ and peatland conservation was challenging to come by, and experts and
non-local consultants, often from overseas, were generally the rule of the day; certainly, there was
little to no local expertise in Riau Province. The Project Owners had no local forest-carbon staff at
the beginning of the Project, and all of the local persons engaged in the Project had to be trained to
undertake the Project activities or else suitable experts had to be sourced, usually from overseas.

Another challenge was developing appropriate methods for measurement and monitoring
conservation of forest carbon, sustainable forest management, and carbon stock enhancement;
capacity building and institutional arrangement for sub-national level and addressing leakage86;
these techniques simply did not exist when the Project was being licensed and were in a nascent
stage at the Project's start date.

Conclusion: The lack of an approved methodology in the years when the project was being licensed,
a lack of local staff knowledgeable about REDD, forest carbon and peatland conservation
constituted an additional barrier to the Project.

Barrier 4. Barriers Related to Local Conditions (2011-2016)

There were barriers to the implementation of any carbon-based project, whether or not it involved
receiving funding from the sale of carbon credits as civil society and local populations were
distrustful of the REDD+ process 87. Considerable opposition existed by local and international civil
society groups who were opposed to REDD+. In particular indigenous rights groups, Climate Action
Network (Europe), Friends of the Earth International 88 , and many Indonesian NGOs actively worked
against the REDD+ mechanisms. Indonesia's civil society opposition led to the formation of Climate
Justice Now!, a public advocacy coalition that strongly advocated against REDD+ and regularly
demonstrated against the FCPF, REDD+, and the World Bank support of REDD. The active
campaigns in Indonesia against REDD+ mobilized substantial opposition to REDD+ and forest
carbon projects in Indonesia89. Furthermore, the Project Owner of RER-CP experienced substantial
hostility from Indonesian civil society groups in any efforts related to forest conservation.

Additional local barriers and conditions existed in that there was general disdain and disregard for
conservation areas. Local populations and farmers felt that if there was an area of forest that was
not being used, that they had a right to use the area. In Riau Province, this often led to the illegal or

Page 152 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

partially legal conversion of "unused forests" to oil palm. Conservation areas, bio-reserves, or
national parks were scorned and, as a general rule, succumbed to substantial encroachment,
mostly from small holder oil palm agriculturists. The process of burning the forest to clear it for oil
palm by smallholders was relentless. The outcomes in Tesso Nilo, Harapan, and Giam Siak Kecil -
Bukit Batu Reserve are all stark reminders of this 90.

Conclusion: The Project faced strong objections and distrust from local communities and local
and international civil society groups. If implemented without the benefit of carbon financing, long
term protection would not be feasible.

Barrier 5. Barriers Due to Prevailing Practice

First of its Kind. This Project acknowledges that generating emission reduction credits from a
private forest concession owner that has industrial forestry plantations, and pulpwood processing
as its primary business model has never been implemented in Indonesia. It is one of the "first of its
kind." When the original ER licenses were acquired, there were no successful REDD+ projects of any
kind in Indonesia. When the Project started its activities in early 2016, there was not a single
successfully validated REDD+ project in Indonesia. Since the introduction of the REDD+ concept in
Indonesia around 2007, and despite many REDD+ project development efforts, there are currently
only three other validated AFOLU carbon origination projects of any kind (CDM or otherwise) in the
Republic of Indonesia. Two APD projects were set up specifically by non-forestry companies
(Katingan and South Sumatra Merang) and one coastal mangrove reforestation NGO project (Aceh).
This Project is a ground-breaking project, and when it is approved, it will be only the third avoided
deforestation REDD+ project in the last decade to succeed in the Republic of Indonesia. When the
concept of the Project was first proposed, it was widely panned by the press, communities, and civil
society organizations and held to be an exercise in "greenwashing" in order to "land-bank" the
project area for future HTI development.

Conclusion: The Project has faced barriers as a "first of its kind" project; no forestry company has
ever managed to successfully conserve a large-scale peat swamp forest or any type of forest in
Indonesia for a prolonged period of time.

Outcome of Step 2a: List of barriers that may prevent one or more land use scenarios identified in
the step 1b.

Five main Barriers were identified:

1. Investment Barriers
2. Institutional Barriers;
3. Technological Barriers;
4. Barriers due to Local Conditions Barriers;
5. Barriers due to prevailing practices.

Page 153 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Sub-step 2b: Show that the identified barriers would not prevent the implementation of proposed at
least one of the alternative land-use scenarios (except the proposed project activity)

The following analysis reviews whether there exist barriers that do not prevent the implementation
of at least one of the alternative land-use scenarios.

Page 154 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Activity Identified Barriers

Industrial Since the Project's initiation and even further back, the land has been legally eligible for the
Acacia establishment of Acacia plantation. The land has desirable characteristics for industrial plantation
Plantation activity; it is well located in relation to paper and pulp processing facilities, it already is a partially
drained peat-landscape, and it had been gazetted as production forestry, which means, in turn, it
could be legally converted to HTI production. The success and prosperity of the industry mean that
there was adequate ability to receive traditional debt financing for this activity as it was profitable
and part of the Indonesian national development strategy. There was an adequate workforce
available and considerable local community support for the activity as it provided for many local
jobs.
Conclusion: There are no barriers to this type of land-use.

Continuation Although legally permissible, commercial selective logging is commercially and ecologically
of Pre-Project impractical on the Project Area, largely in part due to the fact that the area was logged both legally
Activity - and illegally in the decades between 1970-2010. The result is that the vast majority of exploitable
Commercial species and trees with commercial value have been removed (Further barriers arise from the more
Selective recent Indonesian MoF and MOEF regulatory requirements of forest management, forest planning,
Logging and enforcement of the same. With the lack of trees of commercial value, the high cost of doing
business in the much more regulated forestry sector, the difficulty of accessing timber markets
without legal certifications, and the lack of nearby processing facilities all create substantial
barriers to this as a possible land-use. Furthermore, it is doubtful that commercial timber sourced
frompeat-swamp forests would be an attractive product in today's more environmentally conscious
timber markets.
Conclusion: Commercial selective logging faces an inability to acquire capital, regulatory barriers, but most
importantly, barriers based on local conditions, i.e. commercial timber of insufficient quantity and
located on deep peat. It is therefore not a credible alternative land-use scenario

Protected The creation of a protected forest in the manner of a National Park, although perhaps legally
Forests feasible, is not likely. The Tesso Nilo NP in central Riau which lost 79% of its forest cover in just 16
without years to encroachment by locals, despite being primarily hemmed in by private concessions and
Benefit of being formally "protected".
Carbon
Crediting
Conclusion: Because of the identified barriers, such as lack of funding, lack of local community support, and a
strong likelihood of encroachment, this land-use scenario is deemed not credible.

Mining & The most substantial barrier to mining activity in the Kampar is the lack of known mineral deposits
Fossil Fuel in the Project Area and the considerable peat overburden. The Project area is unsuitable for
Extraction mineral extraction. This is further confirmed by the absence of mineral extraction on the Kampar
Peninsula, including small scale artisanal mining. Mining is not considered a credible alternative
land-use activity of the Project Area.
Current fossil fuel extraction on the Kampar Peninsula is limited by licensing from the Ministry of
Mining and Energy. Outside of the nearby PCC block, only exploratory activity has been undertaken
at the nearby Selat Panjang Block with a limited production of 300 barrels per day. There are no
known further developments that would suggest that the Project Area could be licensed for fossil
fuel extraction. Furthermore, oil extraction closest to the Project Area is a capital-intensive activity
with and only undertaken when substantial returns can be projected, which is not the case in the
Project Area. The lacklustre performance of the Selat Panjang block, which remains to this day,
over 25 years after it was licensed as a small exploratory block strongly suggest that there are no
commercially viable oil and gas reserves in the Project Area or that drilling in that area is
warranted.
Conclusion: Fossil fuel production is not considered a credible alternative land-use activity of the Project Area
because of the identified barriers: lack of a license and no proven fossil fuel reserves in the Project
Area.
Table 73- Analysis reviews of identified barriers

In conclusion, significant barriers prevent the realization of all but a single credible land use
scenario: industrial Acacia plantation.

Page 155 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Sub-Step 2c. Determination of baseline scenario (if allowed by the barrier analysis)

The alternative baseline scenario of Protected Forests (without the benefit of carbon financing) is
included in list from Sub-step 2a, but is in fact prevented by the identified barriers. Subsequent to
the analysis of Sub-step 2b, there is only one remaining land use scenario, that of industrial Acacia
plantation activity.

The A/R Methodological tool therefore indicates to continue the analysis with Step 4: Common
Practice test91

STEP 3. Investment analysis

Because a single credible land use scenario was identified through the analytical steps described
above, a detailed investment analysis is not required by the A/R Methodological tool 92.
Nonetheless, an investment analysis was prepared by the Project Owner and its result are available
for review during the validation audit. The results further support the below conclusion in regard to
additionality. The results support the identification of industrial Acacia plantation as being the most
likely and most profitable use on the areas legally classified as production forest.

STEP 4. Common practice analysis.

Analyse the extent to which "similar forestation activities to the one proposed as the project activity
have been implemented or are currently underway. Similar forestation activities are defined as that
which are of similar scale, take place in a comparable environment, inter alia, with respect to the
regulatory framework and are undertaken in the relevant geographical area, subject to guidance by
the underlying methodology. Other registered A/R CDM project activities shall not be included in
the analysis93.

At the Project Start Date, it was not a common practice in Indonesia for the government to have
intact forest land designated for production that is not being commercially exploited and generating
some type of taxable income. Prior to the possibility of an Ecosystem Restoration license, there was
no option to maintain hutan produksi, or production forest as anything else but as selective logging
or plantation activities. A concession owner who was unable to make the concession productive
would see his license revoked by the Ministry of Forestry.

Successful REDD+ projects before the implementation of the RER Carbon Project were unknown.
Although there were efforts to undertake REDD+ in Riau Province before the implementation of the
Project, none were successful. Furthermore, efforts to preserve forest landscapes, such as the
Tesso Nilo National Park and Giam Siak Kecil Biosphere Reserve, are examples of government-
funded activities or public-private partnerships. These types of actors were often faced with
conflicts with local governments and local communities as they were perceived as taking land away
from the people and not contributing to local government coffers. They are subject to substantial

Page 156 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

encroachment and a lack of protection. Within Indonesia, there are also some examples of small
donor backed conservation projects or where a large corporate in the extractive industries are
paying for restoration costs of sites as reparations for areas damaged as part of their operations.
Sometimes this occurs nearby active operations, and sometimes it occurs in other locations. These
types of activities are not widespread and are typically limited in size and scope.

The only APD / WRC projects that are comparable is the Sumatra Merang Peatland Project in South
Sumatra, however at 22,000 ha, the RER Project is 83% larger and covers a more complex
landscape. The only comparable project to the RER Project in all of Indonesia is the Katingan
Peatland Restoration & Conservation Project, a VCS APD project in Central Kalimantan. There are
no other avoided deforestation projects that have succeeded in Indonesia. The RER Project based
on its scope and scale is not a common project activity.

Conclusion

The Project is considered additional, and the above analysis has determined that the baseline
scenario is the conversion of HPH forest to HTI industrial Acacia plantation.

Page 157 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Methodology Deviations

First Methodology Deviation/alteration

The RER Project has temporarily deviated from the peat depth measurement requirements of
VMD0016 – Methods for Stratification of the Project Area (X-STR) ver 1.2 because it was not
available at the time the Project undertook its peat depth sampling efforts.

The current methodology: VMD0016 – Methods for Stratification of the Project Area (X-STR) ver 1.2
states:

“To create a peat depth map, depth measurements must be conducted in a systematic way along
transects that cover the peatland. Starting from the margin (or boundary) of the peatland, the initial
distance between depth observations along transects must not be greater than 100 m with a
Distance between transects must be 200 m at maximum. When two subsequent depth
observations along a transect fulfill the required depth criteria by a margin of at least 50 cm, the
distance between transects and observation points can be raised to 500 m (4 measurements per
km). Transects must cross the entire terrain of the peatland and must be initiated from opposed
margins.”

Versus

The old methodology VMD0016 – Methods for Stratification of the Project Area (X-STR) ver 1.1
states

“The height model must be combined with data from peat corings to generate a spatially explicit
map of peat strata that fulfil the above requirements. The required peat depth at each sampling
location must be determined with a resolution of at least 0.5 m using a peat corer or auger (such as
an Eijkelkamp corer). Peat coring locations must be selected using representative random sampling
or systematic sampling. It is acceptable to conduct corings along transects that run perpendicular
to the perimeter of the peat dome. Sampling intervals must range from 500 to 1500 m depending
on the size of the peat dome, terrain accessibility, observed peat thickness and the observed slope
in subsequent peat thickness assessments along the transect.”

The Project is temporarily deviating from the peat depth map requirements contained in X-STR ver
1.2 because the Project relied on X-STR ver 1.1 (valid until 08 March 2021) to conduct all field
measurements for peat depth mapping as ver 1.2 was not available until 08 September 2020,
many months after the fieldwork was conducted. The Project, however, will update its peat map and
mapping process at the 10-year baseline re-adjustment.

What RER-CP did when it undertook peat measurements per X-STR ver 1.1:

a. in a systematic sampling manner;

b. using a staircase transect system;
c. Sampling intervals of 500 m was generally used, but never more than 1,500 m; and
d. Sampling resolution accuracy was 50cm.

Page 158 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

What is Required by X-STR v. 1.2:

a. Transect must start at project boundary

b. initial distance between depth observations along transects must not be greater than 100
m
c. initia depth accuracy of at least 50 cm for tropical peat
d. When two subsequent depth observations along a transect fulfill the required depth criteria
by a margin of at least 50 cm, the distance between transects and observation points can
be raised to 500 m x 500 m (1 measurement represent 25 Ha or 4 measurements per km 2)
and would require 5,200 peat depth samples.
e. Transects must cross the entire terrain of the peatland and must be initiated from opposed
margins
The differences between the two versions will not impact the RER Project because the entire project
area is on deep peat (see Map 28) in a peat dome. The new requirements will not affect the
conservativeness of the measurements used because of the deep peat. The Peat Depth
measurements are used to determine the peat depletion timeline (PDT) which in turn is used to
determine when peat subsidence will be greater than the peat in a specific part of the project area.
This is especially important if the peat is shallow or where there is mineral soils in the project area
and no peat. In the case of RER-CP, the entire project area is in peat that is mostly very deep (500-
700 cm). Only a very small percentage is deep peat (300-500cm).

The deviation only relates to the procedure for measurements of the peat depth and does not relate
to any other part of the methodology. In any case, with the peat being as thick asit is in the Project
Area, the peat would not be depleted in the first ten years (i.e. until the first baseline re-
assessment). The accuracy of the emission reductions are not affected by this deviation. And in any
case, the Project can update the peat map ta the Baseline re-assessment in 2025. The temporary
deviation is also appropriate as it is not reasonable to have the Project reassess its peat map where
it is clear that such a re-assessment will have no impact whatsoever on the GHG emission
reductions or removals.

The Project has not undertaken any other deviations from the VM0007 methodology or any of the
related modules relating to the criteria and procedures for monitoring or measurement.

Second Methodology Deviation/alteration

The Project has opted to exclude a number of emissions from the Baseline and the Project. These
omissions might be considered deviations/alterations from the methodology. VM0007 and its
modules allow for the exclusions, however, for transparency purposes, the Project has opted to
include these exclusions in this section. All of the exclusions are conservative and only relate to the
measurement of emissions, they do not relate to any other aspect of the methodology. They are set
forth below.

Page 159 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Exclusion of emissions from excluded in the baseline and project that deviate from
VM0007

Emissions from peat exposed to aerobic decomposition by spreading or piling following the
establishment or maintenance of ditches are conservatively be omitted as per BL-PEAT – Section
5.3. These exclusions, as they are only in the baseline, are conservative because they do not
increase any project emissions.

Carbon pools excluded in the baseline and project that deviate from VM0007

Carbon Pool In/excluded Justification

Above-ground non- Excluded Non-tree biomass carbon pool is expected to increase
tree biomass in the project scenario compared to the baseline, and
therefore can be conservatively omitted as permitted
under VM0007.
Litter on mineral Excluded It is conservatively excluded as permitted under
soil VM0007 where inclusion is optional. However, litter
carbon pools and their stock changes may be
monitored in the future.
Litter on peatland Excluded It is conservatively excluded as permitted under
VM0007 where inclusion is optional. As the litter carbon
pool is expected to increase in the project scenario
compared to the baseline, it is therefore conservatively
omitted.
`Deadwood Excluded It is conservatively excluded as permitted under
VM0007 where inclusion is optional. This pool is not
mandatory for either mineral soil or peatland. As the
dead wood carbon pool is expected to increase in the
project scenario compared to the baseline, it is
therefore conservatively omitted.
Table 74 Carbon pools excluded in the baseline and Project

GHG Sources excluded in the baseline and project that deviate from VM0007

REDD GHG sources in the baseline

GHG Sources Gas In/excluded Justification

Burning of CO2 Excluded Above-ground biomass losses as a result of fire are
woody conservatively assumed zero
biomass CH4 Excluded Above-ground biomass losses as a result of fire are
conservatively assumed zero
N 2O Excluded Above ground biomass losses as a result of fire are
conservatively assumed zero
No fires have been observed in the baseline to date and fire is assumed to be zero in
the baseline and GHG from fires are conservatively omitted.

Because measured biomass burning is zero, the relative contribution (RE%) is

estimated as zero and less than the 5% threshold of the biomass pool as specified in
T-SIG.

Page 160 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Combustion of CO2 Excluded Combustion of fossil fuels is not included and CO2 from
fossil fuels combustion of fuels is conservatively omitted as permitted
under VM0007.
Use of N 2O Excluded Acacia species are nitrogen fixing species and no
fertilizers nitrogenous fertilizers are used in Acacia plantation
management. N2O emissions from fertilizer applications are
excluded in baseline scenario. Conservatively omitted as
permitted under VM0007.
Table 75 – REDD GHG sources in the Baseline that are excluded

REDD GHG sources in the project

As noted in the below tables, the Project will monitor combustion and will report any such emissions
as they occur.

GHG Sources Gas In/excluded Justification

Burning of CO2 Excluded Above-ground biomass losses as a result of fire are
woody CH4 Excluded conservatively assumed zero.
biomass N 2O Excluded
No fires have been observed in the baseline to date and fire is assumed to be zero in
the project and GHG from fires are conservatively omitted.
Because measured biomass burning is zero, the relative contribution (RE%) is
estimated as zero and less than the 5% threshold of the biomass pool as specified in
T-SIG.
However, fires will be monitored and included if they occur in the future.
Combustion of CO2 Excluded Combustion of fossil fuels is not included and CO2 from
fossil fuels combustion of fuels is conservatively omitted as permitted
under VM0007.
Use of N 2O Excluded Use of fertilizers is not planned for the project activities. N 2O
fertilizers emissions from fertilizer applications are excluded in project
scenario. Conservatively omitted as permitted under
VM0007.
Table 76- REDD GHG sources in the Project that are excluded

WRC GHG sources in the baseline

GHG Sources Gas In/excluded Justification

Peat CO2 Excluded Above-ground biomass losses as a result of fire are
combustion CH4 Excluded conservatively assumed zero.
N 2O Excluded
No fires have been observed in the baseline to date and fire is assumed to be zero in
the project and GHG from fires are conservatively omitted.
Because measured biomass burning is zero, the relative contribution (RE%) is
estimated as zero and less than the 5% threshold of the biomass pool as specified in
T-SIG.
However, fires will be monitored and included if they occur in the future.
Combustion of CO2 Excluded Combustion of fossil fuels is not included and GHG emissions
fossil fuels CH4 Excluded from combustion of fuels is conservatively omitted as
N 2O Excluded permitted under VM0007.
Table 77 - WRC GHG sources in the Baseline that are excluded

Page 161 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

WRC GHG sources in the project

GHG Sources Gas In/excluded Justification

Peat CO2 Excluded Above-ground biomass losses as a result of fire are
combustion
CH4 Excluded conservatively assumed zero.
N 2O Excluded
No fires have been observed in the baseline to date and fire is assumed to be zero in
the project and GHG from fires are conservatively omitted.

Because measured biomass burning is zero, the relative contribution (RE%) is

estimated as zero and less than the 5% threshold of the biomass pool as specified in
T-SIG.

However, fires will be monitored and included if they occur in the future.
Combustion of CO2 Excluded Combustion of fossil fuels is not included and GHG emissions
fossil fuels CH4 Excluded from combustion of fuels is conservatively omitted as
N 2O Excluded permitted under VM0007.
Table 78 - WRC GHG sources in the Project that are excluded

Page 162 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

4 QUANTIFICATION OF GHG
EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND
REMOVALS
Baseline Emissions
The Project has used VM0007 (REDD-MF), VMD0006 (BL-PL) and VMD0042 (BL-PEAT) to assess the
Project’s baseline.

Overarching Baseline Approach

In order to determine baseline emissions for both modules, the Project must establish two baseline
areas:

First the Project must establish the Baseline reference region or Proxy Area as per §5 Part 1 of BP-
PL and §5.1.2 of PL-PEAT). This needs to be done first because the Project does not have a
government approved management plan for deforestation.

Secondly the Project must establish the baseline project area which will describe the “annual area
of land deforested”. This is done per §5 Part 1, steps 1-1 through 1.6 of BL-PL); this will establish
the baseline project area that will be deforested, and it will also be the area where peat related
emissions will occur. It will also establish the boundaries for the four Project Activities.

Only after the Project has established the two baseline areas can it begin to calculate “baseline
carbon stock change for PL-PL pursuant to §5, Part 2 and begin “assessing GHG emissions” (per
§5.2 of BL-PEAT). For BL-PL, §5 Part 2 is followed and for BL-PEAT, § 5.2 is followed. For BL-PEAT,
the Project is also required to take consideration of a set of General Procedures and Assumptions
from §5.1.1; these are described below at §4.1.2.

The flowchart below describes the process the Project used.

Page 163 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Figure 24 - Flowchart of how Project Established the Baseline

Proxy Areas
Using the module VMD0006 (BL-PL), a total of 6 suitable proxy areas were identified (see Table 79
and Map 33). This is required for both BL-PL and BL-PEAT in as there is no fixed management plan
to determine the rate of deforestation, thus a process set forth in BL-PL, §5 Part 1 is used to do
this. BL-PEAT at §5.2 also requires the use of a proxy analysis.

Reference region Area in Ha Provinc Concession Peat %

e Grant Date
PT. RAPP (Tasik Belat) 11,339 2009
PT. Peranap Timber (Serapung) 32,527 2002
PT. Essa Indah Timber
10,023 2003
(Serapung)
PT. Madukoro Lestari (Tasik) 14,903 Riau 2003 100%
PT. Harapan Jaya (Tasik) 5,084 2003
PT. RAPP (Meranti East and
44,170 2009
West)
RER 130,090 2012-2014
Table 79- Summary of suitable reference regions
Area in Ha Province Concession Grant Peat
Concession
Date %
PT. Gemilang Cipta Nusantara 20,123 Riau 2012 100%
PT. Sinar Mutiara Nusantara 32,776 2014
PT. The Best One Unitimber 40,666 2014
PT. Global Alam Nusantara 36,525 2014
Total 130,090
Table 80- Summary of RER Project concession areas

Page 164 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Process to Select the Proxy Areas

Satellite Imagery Analysis

The initial selection of proxy locations was conducted by using proprietary APRIL information
regarding its plantation concessions and APRIL supply partner plantation concessions. This
proprietary data included actual deforestation records, management plans (RKUs RKTs, and other
proprietary plantation management documentation), plantation area registers, forest inventory
data, and plantation and infrastructure survey maps, and plantation survey records. The harvesting
plans of all of these concessions (and subsequent harvesting rates) have been verified by data from
the Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry and ensure that in addition to the below
satellite imagery analysis that the deforestation rates of the proxy areas are accurate.

A) Data acquisition

For each concession, Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM), Landsat Data was downloaded from the US
Geological Survey (USGS) online database13, including Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM), Landsat 5
Enhanced TM Plus (ETM+) or Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI). Geometric corrections and
orthorectification was applied to all Level 1 Landsat data sourced from USGS applying SRTM DEM
data and precision ground control points, in accordance with all standards provided by the GOFC-
GOLD 2013 Handbook.

B) Landsat pre-processing

Multi-year satellite data were analysed using Google Earth Engine to get nearly cloud-free data. For
time-step 1, imagery from the concession grant date was downloaded. For time-step 2, imagery
from the last year of forest development was downloaded. Multi-year satellite data were analysed
using Google Earth Engine to identify cloud-free image coverage for the start year. Due to Landsat’s
long revisit time and the high level of cloud cover in Indonesia, a compromise had to be made
between cloud cover and the imagery acquisition date’s proximity to the concession grant and
development completion dates.

C) Landsat classification

To increase the accuracy of the classification, the Project Area boundaries were overlaid on the
Landsat imagery, and all spectral data outside the relevant area of interest was removed from
further analysis.

To determine the land cover types using Landsat data the algorithm was developed following a
decision tree logic94 of two land cover types which were generated by using: i) canopy cover
percentage95, and ii) based on supervised classification using support vector machine. The canopy
cover percentage was calculated as a function of the Enhanced Vegetation Index 96. An 'optimized'
vegetation index designed to enhance the vegetation signal with improved sensitivity in high
biomass regions and improved vegetation monitoring through a de-coupling of the canopy

Page 165 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

background signal and a reduction in atmosphere influences. Finally, the noises due to the cloud
effect were corrected by taking the output from the analysis using the satellite imagery from the
previous time step.

Two path/row Landsat scenes were used, 1) Path/row 126/60 for Madukoro Lestari, Harapan Jaya,
and Meranti; 2) Path/row 126/60 and 126/59 for Peranap Timber, Essa Indah Timber, and Tasik
Belat. All Landsat details are set forth in Tables 81-86 below.

All images for the proxy analysis were used to get nearly 100% cloud-free images. The satellite
images shown are for both pre- and post-plantation to represent the median values within the
historical reference period (1 Jan 2006 to 31 Dec 2015).

The mosaic Landsat images used were cloud-free. Finally, an accuracy assessment was run on each
of the maps to ensure that the overall classification accuracy (i.e. forest vs non-forest) was at least
90%. The overall classification accuracy was then calculated using project equation 10. This was
obtained by comparing the unprocessed Landsat data and high-resolution imagery from Google
Earth (when available).

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑙𝑦

𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙𝑠
(10)

All accuracy estimates for the maps were satisfactory with the average accuracy being 94.8%.

Further, the concession boundaries were overlaid onto the satellite images, and images outside of
the boundaries were masked to improve the classification of land cover. The canopy cover map and
training data (forest classifications from plots assessed in the field) were then analysed using
supervised classification machine learning algorithms to classify into forests, degraded forests and
non-forest. The information was further classified against the company spatial database (Python
Base) to verify land cover classifications. It should be noted here that actual planted areas have
been ground surveyed in the field to a high level of accuracy, so the deforestation estimates are of a
high level of accuracy (sub-meter level). The process used to prepare the satellite imagery is also
set forth in Figure 25 below. This process is consistent for all 6 proxy area maps.

Page 166 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Figure 25- The process flow used to prepare satellite imagery for proxy area analysis

Map 33- Geographic location of the 6 proxy reference regions for the baseline deforestation rate calculation

All 6 proxy areas share the same landscape as RER Project Area, located on the geological
landscape, share the same soil types (100% peatland), have similar topography (flat and low
altitude) and are all within the same range of land areas as the 4 RER concessions.

Page 167 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

A) PT. RAPP (Tasik Belat) is located to the north of the RER project area and is a long thin strip of
land that runs from east to west. The concession was granted in 2009 and is 11,339 hectares.
In 2011 the concession contained 11,323 hectares of natural or secondary forest and by 2016
this had been reduced to 6,233 hectares through planned deforestation.

Map 34 Land cover maps (top) and satellite data (bottom) for PT. RAPP (Tasik Belat)

Mosaic satellite data used for the above land use classification is listed below in Table 81.

Concession PT. RAPP

Sector Tasik Belat
Time Before plantation establishment
Year 2009-2010
Satellite Landsat 5
Path/ Row 126/60 & 126/59
Image ID Date Image ID Date
LT05_126059_20090130 30/01/2009 LT05_126059_20090911 11/09/2009
LT05_126060_20090215 15/02/2009 LT05_126059_20090927 27/09/2009
LT05_126059_20090215 15/02/2009 LT05_126060_20091013 13/10/2009
LT05_126059_20090404 04/04/2009 LT05_126059_20091013 13/10/2009
LT05_126059_20090522 22/05/2009 LT05_126059_20091029 29/10/2009
LT05_126059_20090607 07/06/2009 LT05_126059_20091216 16/12/2009
LT05_126059_20090623 23/06/2009 LT05_126059_20100117 17/01/2010
LT05_126060_20090709 09/07/2009 LT05_126059_20100202 02/02/2010
LT05_126059_20090709 09/07/2009 LT05_126059_20100914 14/09/2010
LT05_126060_20090725 25/07/2009 LT05_126060_20101016 16/10/2010
Image ID/ LT05_126060_20090826 26/08/2009 LT05_126059_20101016 16/10/2010
Date After plantation establishment
2016
Landsat 8
126/60 & 126/59
Image ID Date Image ID Date
LC08_126059_20160118 18/01/2016 LC08_126059_20160712 12/07/2016
LC08_126060_20160203 03/02/2016 LC08_126060_20160813 13/08/2016
LC08_126059_20160306 06/03/2016 LC08_126059_20160813 13/08/2016
LC08_126060_20160407 07/04/2016 LC08_126059_20160829 29/08/2016
LC08_126059_20160407 07/04/2016 LC08_126059_20160914 14/09/2016
LC08_126059_20160423 23/04/2016 LC08_126060_20160930 30/09/2016

Page 168 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

LC08_126060_20160509 09/05/2016 LC08_126059_20160930 30/09/2016

LC08_126059_20160509 09/05/2016 LC08_126060_20161016 16/10/2016
LC08_126059_20160525 25/05/2016 LC08_126060_20161117 17/11/2016
LC08_126059_20160610 10/06/2016 LC08_126059_20161117 17/11/2016
LC08_126060_20160626 26/06/2016 LC08_126060_20161203 03/12/2016
LC08_126059_20160626 26/06/2016 LC08_126060_20161219 19/12/2016
LC08_126060_20160712 12/07/2016 LC08_126059_20161219 19/12/2016
Table 81- Satellite Imagery Details for PT. RAPP (Tasik Belat)

B) PT. Peranap Timber (Serapung) is located to the north east of the RER project area and is a
triangular block of land. The concession was granted in 2002 and is 32,527 hectares. In 2006
the concession contained 32,526 hectares of natural forest and by 2014 this had been
reduced to 19,515 hectares through planned deforestation.

Map 35- Land cover maps (top) and satellite data (bottom) for PT. Peranap Timber (Serapung)

Mosaic satellite data used for the above land use classification is listed below in Table 82.

Page 169 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Concession PT. Peranap Timber

Sector Serapung
Time Before plantation establishment
Year 2000-2005
Satellite Landsat 5
Path/ Row 126/60 & 126/59
Image ID Date Image ID Date
LT05_126060_20000122 22/01/2000 LT05_126060_20010719 19/07/2001
LT05_126059_20000122 22/01/2000 LT05_126059_20010719 19/07/2001
LT05_126059_20000207 07/02/2000 LT05_126059_20010804 04/08/2001
LT05_126060_20000223 23/02/2000 LT05_126060_20010905 05/09/2001
LT05_126059_20000223 23/02/2000 LT05_126059_20010905 05/09/2001
LT05_126059_20000310 10/03/2000 LT05_126060_20010921 21/09/2001
LT05_126059_20000411 01/04/2000 LT05_126059_20010921 21/09/2001
LT05_126060_20000427 27/04/2000 LT05_126059_20031130 30/11/2003
LT05_126059_20000427 27/04/2000 LT05_126059_20040218 18/02/2004
LT05_126060_20000513 13/05/2000 LT05_126060_20040321 21/03/2004
LT05_126059_20000513 13/05/2000 LT05_126059_20040321 21/03/2004
LT05_126060_20000529 29/05/2000 LT05_126059_20040406 06/04/2004
LT05_126059_20000529 29/05/2000 LT05_126059_20040422 22/04/2004
LT05_126060_20000614 14/06/2000 LT05_126060_20040508 08/05/2004
LT05_126059_20000614 14/06/2000 LT05_126059_20040508 08/05/2004
LT05_126060_20000630 30/06/2000 LT05_126060_20040625 25/06/2004
LT05_126059_20000630 30/06/2000 LT05_126059_20040625 25/06/2004
LT05_126060_20000716 16/07/2000 LT05_126059_20040727 27/07/2004
LT05_126059_20000716 16/07/2000 LT05_126059_20040812 12/08/2004
LT05_126060_20000817 17/08/2000 LT05_126059_20041015 15/10/2004
LT05_126059_20000817 17/08/2000 LT05_126059_20041218 18/12/2004
LT05_126059_20000902 02/09/2000 LT05_126060_20050220 20/02/2005
LT05_126060_20001004 04/10/2000 LT05_126059_20050220 20/02/2005
LT05_126059_20001004 04/10/2000 LT05_126059_20050308 08/03/2005
Image ID/ LT05_126060_20001020 20/10/2000 LT05_126059_20050324 24/03/2005
Date LT05_126059_20001020 20/10/2000 LT05_126059_20050409 09/04/2005
LT05_126059_20001105 05/11/2000 LT05_126059_20050425 25/04/2005
LT05_126059_20001207 07/12/2000 LT05_126059_20050511 11/05/2005
LT05_126059_20010108 08/01/2001 LT05_126060_20050612 12/06/2005
LT05_126059_20010124 24/01/2001 LT05_126059_20050612 12/06/2005
LT05_126059_20010313 13/03/2001 LT05_126059_20050628 28/06/2005
LT05_126060_20010329 29/03/2001 LT05_126059_20050714 14/07/2005
LT05_126059_20010329 29/03/2001 LT05_126059_20050730 30/07/2005
LT05_126059_20010414 14/04/2001 LT05_126059_20050815 15/08/2005
LT05_126059_20010516 16/05/2001 LT05_126059_20050831 31/08/2005
LT05_126060_20010601 01/06/2001 LT05_126059_20050916 16/09/2005
LT05_126059_20010601 01/06/2001 LT05_126059_20051002 02/10/2005
LT05_126060_20010703 03/07/2001 LT05_126059_20051018 18/10/2005
LT05_126059_20010703 03/07/2001
After plantation establishment
2014-2015
Landsat 8
126/60 & 126/59
Image ID Date Image ID Date
LC08_126059_20140112 12/01/2014 LC08_126059_20141214 14/12/2014
LC08_126059_20140128 28/01/2014 LC08_126059_20150115 15/01/2015
LC08_126059_20140213 13/02/2014 LC08_126059_20150131 31/01/2015
LC08_126059_20140301 01/03/2014 LC08_126059_20150216 16/02/2015
LC08_126060_20140402 02/04/2014 LC08_126060_20150320 20/03/2015
LC08_126059_20140402 02/04/2014 LC08_126059_20150405 05/04/2015

Page 170 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

LC08_126059_20140504 04/05/2014 LC08_126060_20150421 21/04/2015

LC08_126059_20140520 20/05/2014 LC08_126059_20150421 21/04/2015
LC08_126060_20140621 21/06/2014 LC08_126059_20150507 07/05/2015
LC08_126059_20140621 21/06/2014 LC08_126060_20150608 08/06/2015
LC08_126060_20140707 07/07/2014 LC08_126059_20150624 24/06/2015
LC08_126059_20140707 07/07/2014 LC08_126060_20150710 10/07/2015
LC08_126060_20140723 23/07/2014 LC08_126059_20150710 10/07/2015
LC08_126059_20140723 23/07/2014 LC08_126059_20150726 26/07/2015
LC08_126060_20140808 08/08/2014 LC08_126059_20150827 27/08/2015
LC08_126059_20140808 08/08/2014 LC08_126060_20150912 12/09/2015
LC08_126059_20140824 24/08/2014 LC08_126059_20150912 12/09/2015
LC08_126060_20141011 11/10/2014 LC08_126059_20151014 14/10/2015
LC08_126059_20141011 11/10/2014 LC08_126059_20151030 30/10/2015
LC08_126059_20141112 12/11/2014 LC08_126059_20151201 01/12/2015
LC08_126059_20141128 28/11/2014 LC08_126059_20151217 17/12/2015
LC08_126060_20141214 14/12/2014
Table 82- Satellite Imagery Details for PT. Peranap Timber (Serapung)

C) PT. Essa Indah Timber (Serapung) is located to the north east of the RER project area and is an
oblong block of land that is oriented north to south. The concession was granted in 2003 and is
10,023 hectares. In 2006 the concession contained 10,023 hectares of natural forest and by
2014 this had been reduced to 2,753 hectares through planned deforestation.

Page 171 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 36- Land cover maps (top) and satellite data (bottom) for PT. Essa Indah Timber (Serapung)

Mosaic satellite data used for the above land use classification is listed below in Table 83.

Concession PT. Essa Indah Timber

Sector Serapung
Time Before plantation establishment
Year 2000-2005
Satellite Landsat 5
Path/ Row 126/60 & 126/59
Image ID Date Image ID Date
LT05_126060_20000122 22/01/2000 LT05_126060_20010719 19/07/2001
LT05_126059_20000122 22/01/2000 LT05_126059_20010719 19/07/2001
LT05_126059_20000207 07/02/2000 LT05_126059_20010804 04/08/2001
LT05_126060_20000223 23/02/2000 LT05_126060_20010905 05/09/2001
LT05_126059_20000223 23/02/2000 LT05_126059_20010905 05/09/2001
LT05_126059_20000310 10/03/2000 LT05_126060_20010921 21/09/2001
LT05_126059_20000411 01/04/2000 LT05_126059_20010921 21/09/2001
LT05_126060_20000427 27/04/2000 LT05_126059_20031130 30/11/2003
LT05_126059_20000427 27/04/2000 LT05_126059_20040218 18/02/2004
LT05_126060_20000513 13/05/2000 LT05_126060_20040321 21/03/2004
LT05_126059_20000513 13/05/2000 LT05_126059_20040321 21/03/2004
LT05_126060_20000529 29/05/2000 LT05_126059_20040406 06/04/2004
LT05_126059_20000529 29/05/2000 LT05_126059_20040422 22/04/2004
LT05_126060_20000614 14/06/2000 LT05_126060_20040508 08/05/2004
LT05_126059_20000614 14/06/2000 LT05_126059_20040508 08/05/2004
LT05_126060_20000630 30/06/2000 LT05_126060_20040625 25/06/2004
LT05_126059_20000630 30/06/2000 LT05_126059_20040625 25/06/2004
LT05_126060_20000716 16/07/2000 LT05_126059_20040727 27/07/2004
LT05_126059_20000716 16/07/2000 LT05_126059_20040812 12/08/2004
LT05_126060_20000817 17/08/2000 LT05_126059_20041015 15/10/2004
LT05_126059_20000817 17/08/2000 LT05_126059_20041218 18/12/2004
Image ID/ LT05_126059_20000902 02/09/2000 LT05_126060_20050220 20/02/2005
Date LT05_126060_20001004 04/10/2000 LT05_126059_20050220 20/02/2005
LT05_126059_20001004 04/10/2000 LT05_126059_20050308 08/03/2005
LT05_126060_20001020 20/10/2000 LT05_126059_20050324 24/03/2005
LT05_126059_20001020 20/10/2000 LT05_126059_20050409 09/04/2005
LT05_126059_20001105 05/11/2000 LT05_126059_20050425 25/04/2005
LT05_126059_20001207 07/12/2000 LT05_126059_20050511 11/05/2005
LT05_126059_20010108 08/01/2001 LT05_126060_20050612 12/06/2005
LT05_126059_20010124 24/01/2001 LT05_126059_20050612 12/06/2005
LT05_126059_20010313 13/03/2001 LT05_126059_20050628 28/06/2005
LT05_126060_20010329 29/03/2001 LT05_126059_20050714 14/07/2005
LT05_126059_20010329 29/03/2001 LT05_126059_20050730 30/07/2005
LT05_126059_20010414 14/04/2001 LT05_126059_20050815 15/08/2005
LT05_126059_20010516 16/05/2001 LT05_126059_20050831 31/08/2005
LT05_126060_20010601 01/06/2001 LT05_126059_20050916 16/09/2005
LT05_126059_20010601 01/06/2001 LT05_126059_20051002 02/10/2005
LT05_126060_20010703 03/07/2001 LT05_126059_20051018 18/10/2005
LT05_126059_20010703 03/07/2001
After plantation establishment
2014-2015
Landsat 8
126/60 & 126/59
Image ID Date Image ID Date

Page 172 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

LC08_126059_20140112 12/01/2014 LC08_126059_20141214 14/12/2014

LC08_126059_20140128 28/01/2014 LC08_126059_20150115 15/01/2015
LC08_126059_20140213 13/02/2014 LC08_126059_20150131 31/01/2015
LC08_126059_20140301 01/03/2014 LC08_126059_20150216 16/02/2015
LC08_126060_20140402 02/04/2014 LC08_126060_20150320 20/03/2015
LC08_126059_20140402 02/04/2014 LC08_126059_20150405 05/04/2015
LC08_126059_20140504 04/05/2014 LC08_126060_20150421 21/04/2015
LC08_126059_20140520 20/05/2014 LC08_126059_20150421 21/04/2015
LC08_126060_20140621 21/06/2014 LC08_126059_20150507 07/05/2015
LC08_126059_20140621 21/06/2014 LC08_126060_20150608 08/06/2015
LC08_126060_20140707 07/07/2014 LC08_126059_20150624 24/06/2015
LC08_126059_20140707 07/07/2014 LC08_126060_20150710 10/07/2015
LC08_126060_20140723 23/07/2014 LC08_126059_20150710 10/07/2015
LC08_126059_20140723 23/07/2014 LC08_126059_20150726 26/07/2015
LC08_126060_20140808 08/08/2014 LC08_126059_20150827 27/08/2015
LC08_126059_20140808 08/08/2014 LC08_126060_20150912 12/09/2015
LC08_126059_20140824 24/08/2014 LC08_126059_20150912 12/09/2015
LC08_126060_20141011 11/10/2014 LC08_126059_20151014 14/10/2015
LC08_126059_20141011 11/10/2014 LC08_126059_20151030 30/10/2015
LC08_126059_20141112 12/11/2014 LC08_126059_20151201 01/12/2015
LC08_126059_20141128 28/11/2014 LC08_126059_20151217 17/12/2015
LC08_126060_20141214 14/12/2014
Table 83- Satellite Imagery Details for for PT. Essa Indah Timber (Serapung

D) PT. Madukoro Lestari (Tasik) is located to the west of the RER project area and is an oblong
block of land-oriented east to west. The concession was granted in 2003 and was 14,903
hectares. In 2006, the concession contained 14,889 hectares of natural forest and by 2008
this had been reduced to 8,642 hectares through planned deforestation.

Page 173 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 37- Land cover maps (top) and satellite data (bottom) for PT. Madukoro Lestari (Tasik)

Mosaic satellite data used for the above land use classification is listed below in Table 84.

Concession PT. Madukoro Lestari

Sector Tasik
Time Before plantation establishment
Year 2000-2005
Satellite Landsat 5
Path/ Row 126/60
Image ID Date Image ID Date
LT05_126060_20000122 22/01/2000 LT05_126060_20010329 29/03/2001
LT05_126060_20000223 23/02/2000 LT05_126060_20010601 01/06/2001
LT05_126060_20000427 27/04/2000 LT05_126060_20010703 03/07/2001
Image ID/
Date LT05_126060_20000513 13/05/2000 LT05_126060_20010719 19/07/2001
LT05_126060_20000529 29/05/2000 LT05_126060_20010905 05/09/2001
LT05_126060_20000614 14/06/2000 LT05_126060_20010921 21/09/2001
LT05_126060_20000630 30/06/2000 LT05_126060_20040321 21/03/2004

Page 174 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

LT05_126060_20000716 16/07/2000 LT05_126060_20040508 08/05/2004

LT05_126060_20000817 17/08/2000 LT05_126060_20040625 25/06/2004
LT05_126060_20001004 04/10/2000 LT05_126060_20050220 20/02/2005
LT05_126060_20001020 20/10/2000 LT05_126060_20050612 12/06/2005
After plantation establishment
2008-2009
Landsat 5
126/60
Image ID Date Image ID Date
LT05_126060_20080503 03/05/2008 LT05_126060_20090709 09/07/2009
LT05_126060_20080519 19/05/2008 LT05_126060_20090725 25/07/2009
LT05_126060_20080722 22/07/2008 LT05_126060_20090826 26/08/2009
LT05_126060_20081127 27/11/2008 LT05_126060_20091013 13/10/2009
LT05_126060_20090215 15/02/2009
Table 84- Satellite Imagery Details for PT. Madukoro Lestari (Tasik)

E) PT. Harapan Jaya (Tasik) is located to the west of the RER project area and is a diamond shaped
block of land. The concession was granted in 2003 and is 5,084 hectares. In 2006 the
concession contained 5,084 hectares of natural forest and in one year this had been reduced
to 2,980 hectares through planned deforestation.

Page 175 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 38- Land cover maps (top) and satellite data (bottom) for PT. Harapan Jaya (Tasik)

Mosaic satellite data used for the above land use classification is listed below in Table 85.

Concession PT Harapan Jaya

Sector Tasik
Time Before plantation establishment
Year 2000-2005
Satellite Landsat 5
Path/ Row 126/60
Image ID Date Image ID Date
LT05_126060_20000122 22/01/2000 LT05_126060_20010329 29/03/2001
LT05_126060_20000223 23/02/2000 LT05_126060_20010601 01/06/2001
LT05_126060_20000427 27/04/2000 LT05_126060_20010703 03/07/2001
LT05_126060_20000513 13/05/2000 LT05_126060_20010719 19/07/2001
Image ID/ LT05_126060_20000529 29/05/2000 LT05_126060_20010905 05/09/2001
Date LT05_126060_20000614 14/06/2000 LT05_126060_20010921 21/09/2001
LT05_126060_20000630 30/06/2000 LT05_126060_20040321 21/03/2004
LT05_126060_20000716 16/07/2000 LT05_126060_20040508 08/05/2004
LT05_126060_20000817 17/08/2000 LT05_126060_20040625 25/06/2004
LT05_126060_20001004 04/10/2000 LT05_126060_20050220 20/02/2005
LT05_126060_20001020 20/10/2000 LT05_126060_20050612 12/06/2005

Page 176 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

After plantation establishment

2006
Landsat 5
126/60
Image ID Date Image ID Date
LT05_126060_20061208 08/12/2006 LT05_126060_20060530 30/05/2006
LT05_126060_20060428 28/04/2006 LT05_126060_20061005 05/10/2006
Table 85- Satellite Imagery Details for PT. Harapan Jaya (Tasik)

F) PT. RAPP (Meranti East and West) is located to the south of the RER project area and strip of
land-oriented east to west. The concession was granted in 2009 and was 44,170 hectares. In
2009 the concession contained 43,299 hectares of natural forest and by 2016 this had been
reduced to 17,146 hectares through planned deforestation.

Map 39- Satellite and land cover maps for PT. RAPP (Meranti East and West)

Mosaic satellite data used for the above land use classification is listed below in Table 86.

Page 177 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Concession PT. RAPP

Sector Meranti East and West
Time Before plantation establishment
Year 2007-2009
Satellite Landsat 5
Path/ Row 126/60
Image ID Date Image ID Date
LT05_126060_20070501 01/05/2007 LT05_126060_20081127 27/11/2008
LT05_126060_20070618 18/06/2007 LT05_126060_20090215 15/02/2009
LT05_126060_20070922 22/09/2007 LT05_126060_20090709 09/07/2009
LT05_126060_20080503 03/05/2008 LT05_126060_20090725 25/07/2009
LT05_126060_20080519 19/05/2008 LT05_126060_20090826 26/08/2009
LT05_126060_20080722 22/07/2008 LT05_126060_20091013 13/10/2009
After plantation establishment
2016-2017
Image ID/ Landsat 8
Date 126/60
Image ID Date Image ID Date
LC08_126060_20160203 03/02/2016 LC08_126060_20161117 17/11/2016
LC08_126060_20160407 07/04/2016 LC08_126060_20161203 03/12/2016
LC08_126060_20160509 09/05/2016 LC08_126060_20161219 19/12/2016
LC08_126060_20160626 26/06/2016 LC08_126060_20171019 19/05/2017
LC08_126060_20160712 12/07/2016 LC08_126060_20170528 28/05/2017
LC08_126060_20160813 13/08/2016 LC08_126060_20170613 13/06/2017
LC08_126060_20160930 30/09/2016 LC08_126060_20170816 16/08/2017
LC08_126060_20161016 16/10/2016 LC08_126060_20171003 03/10/2017
Table 86- Satellite Imagery Details PT. RAPP (Meranti East and West)

General Procedures and Assumptions

VMD0042 (BL-PEAT) § 5.1.1 requires that a set of “General Procedures and Assumptions” are
followed in assessing Baseline emissions; the Project makes additional assumptions as well related
to the APD component of the Project.

The Projects baseline emissions and carbon stock assumptions were assessed based on an
analysis of the likeliest baseline scenario. Accounted emissions resulted from the following:

● Avoided deforestation
● Avoided microbial peat decomposition
● Avoided organic carbon dissolved from water bodies
The Project assumes that no non-human-induced rewetting of the peatland would have occurred
under the baseline scenario. Examples of such rewetting includes:

● Avoided wetland degradation through avoided drainage and avoided plantation

development.
● Dike or canal collapses, which would have closed naturally over time, and
● Any progressive subsidence resulting in a raising of relative depths in the water table,
increasingly thinner aerobic layers, and reduced CO2 emission rates.

Page 178 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

All assumptions made by the Project team are based on expert assessments taking into account
verifiable scientific experience for the local area and published scientific documentation available.
All such assumptions were made on a conservative basis.

The Project also has assumed that the baseline deforesting agent would perform regular
maintenance of canals for drainage and transportation purposes.

Emissions from peat exposed to aerobic decomposition by spreading or piling following the
establishment or maintenance of ditches are conservatively be omitted as per BL-PEAT – Section
5.3.

The Project assumed because of the known fire record for the Project Area that no uncontrolled
burning of peat would occur in the Project Area. These emissions are not accounted for since the
loss is insignificant. It was therefore considered conservative to omit GHG emissions from biomass
burning in the baseline.

Baseline emissions have been calculated on an annual basis. This has been done as baseline
changes in land cover classes and drainage status during the project lifetime determines (changes
in) emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O.

The Project has followed the requirements of VM0007 v1.6 § 5.4.2 and included N 2O as a carbon
pool because of the potential for Nitrogen fertilizer application in the baseline scenario. However,
because no nitrogen fertilizer application occurs in the project scenario, it has been excluded from
the GHG emission reduction accounting as suggested in table 7, § 5.4.2 of VM0007 v1.6.is set
forth in §4.1.4.1.

Description of Project Activities

As a result of the Project reporting separate Project Activities, separate baseline emissions
calculations have been prepared for each of the 4 separate project activities that would occur in
comparison to the baseline scenario.

Page 179 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 40- The Four Project Activities

The Project will undertake the following activities

1. RWE – Restoration of drained peatland with no avoiding planned deforestation.

2. RWE+REDD - Restoration of drained peatland with avoiding planned deforestation.
3. CIW – Avoiding wetland degradation with no avoiding planned deforestation.
4. CIW+REDD - Avoiding wetland degradation with avoiding planned deforestation.
All the area developed into plantations under the baseline scenario in any given year is expected to
be clear-felled of all forest cover, then drained (if not drained already) and converted to plantations.
Where legacy canals exist, it is assumed that these are to be replaced by the plantation drainage
canals in the baseline scenario area (a.k.a. plantation development area) and retained outside of
the plantation development areas.

Quantification of GHG emissions from microbial decompositions of peat and water bodies in
peatlands has been carried out by using a spatially and temporally explicit approach. Each baseline
stratum as set out in Table 87 was discretized into parcels of the smallest land or water body unit
with relatively uniform combinations of spatial variables as given in Table 87. Temporal
discretization has been used by sequencing the calculation into 1-year time-steps, while temporal
variables determine the sequence of strata changes. Temporal variability of GHG emission
parameters and temporal restrictions to GHG emissions are presented in Table 87. The

Page 180 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

schematization assures the proper use of GHG emission parameters at the correct spatial location
and the correct time.

Variables Description
(A) Spatial Variables
(A1) Soil type Distinction between peat or non-peat. This is used to exclude all non-peat
parcels from GHG calculation. In the RER Project, there are no non-peat
parcels so this requirement is redundant.
(A2) Initial peat thickness Derived from DEM and Peat Thickness maps. These maps are used to
available for microbial determine the initial condition for subsequent calculations of the
decompositions remaining peat layer available for microbial decompositions. In the RER
project, there are no non-peat parcels and so this requirement is
redundant.
(A3) Initial stratum Stratum of the corresponding parcel at the project start date (as derived
in § 4.4 before conversion into baseline stratum takes effect. This is used
to determine the correct emission factor for the corresponding parcel for
the duration before B1 and B2 (in this table, below) take effect.
(B) Temporal Variables
(B1) Year of drainage Determines the onset of conversion from the initial stratum to the drained
stratum and sets all the drainage-related parameters/variables
accordingly, such as initial consolidations, bulk density changes, etc. This
does not take effect if the initial stratum of the parcel is already drained.
Together with B2, this is used to determine the correct Emission Factor
for the corresponding parcel.
(B2) Year of deforestation/ Determines the onset of conversion of initial stratum to
planting of the baseline deforested/planted stratum. Together with B1, this is used to determine
land cover the correct Emission Factor for the corresponding parcel.
(B3) PDT The Peat Depletion Timeline (PDT) is the period that it takes to deplete
the remaining peat layer by microbial decomposition (conservatively will
be assumed that PDT is reached once the remaining peat layer has
reached 20 cm). Once the PDT is reached in each stratum, all GHG
emissions in that stratum are set to zero.
Table 87- Variables used in the schematization of quantification of GHG emissions from microbial decompositions
of peatland dissolved organic carbon from water bodies in peatlands in the baseline scenario.

Baseline Emissions from REDD (BL-PL)

The methods for estimating net carbon stock changes and GHG emissions from planned
deforestation under the baseline scenario are described in module BL-PL §5 Part 1.

Part 1 - Calculating annual area of planned deforestation.

Step 1.1 - Identification of agent of planned deforestation

A proxy analysis has been conducted to verify that the baseline rate of deforestation is consistent
with other plantation developments of similar size and operational characteristics.

Pursuant to §5, part1.3 of VMD0006 (BL-PL), and because the Project Area does not have a
verifiable plan for the rate of deforestation, the proxy method for determination of the deforestation
rate was implemented. A minimum of 6 proxy areas is required to determine the baseline rate of
deforestation. Further, pursuant to §5, part 1.5 of VMD0006 at least 5 proxy areas must be used to
demonstrate the risk of abandonment.

Pursuant to §5, part 1.3 of VMD0006, all proxy areas must meet the following criteria:

Page 181 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

● Land conversion practices shall be the same as those used by the baseline agent or class
of agent;
● The post-deforestation land use shall be the same in the reference regions as expected in
the Project Area under business as usual;
● The reference regions shall have the same management and land use rights type as the
proposed Project Area under business as usual;
● If suitable sites exist they shall be in the immediate area of the Project; if an insufficient
number of sites exists in the immediate area of the project, sites shall be identified
elsewhere in the same country as the project; if an insufficient number of sites exists in the
country, sites shall be identified in neighbouring countries;
● Agents of deforestation in reference regions must have deforested their land under the
same criteria that the project lands must follow (legally permissible and suitable for
conversion);
● Deforestation in the reference region shall have occurred within the 10 years prior to the
baseline period; and
● The three following conditions shall be met:
o The forest types surrounding the reference region or in the reference region prior to
deforestation shall be in the same proportion as in the Project Area (±20%).
o Soil types that are suitable for the land-use practice used by the agent of
deforestation in the Project Area must be present in the reference region in the
same proportion as the Project Area (±20%). The ratio of slope classes “gentle”
(slope<15%) to “steep” (slope≥15%) in the reference regions shall be (±20%) the
same as the ratio in the Project Area.
o Elevation classes (500m classes) in the reference region shall be in the same
proportion as in the Project Area (±20%).
The reference areas selected were all concessions operated by APRIL Group, which were located on
the Kampar Peninsula immediately adjacent to and surrounding the RER Project Area. They were all
pulp and paper concessions in Indonesia whose licenses were granted between 2000 and 2010.
Using the peat depth map for Kampar Peninsula 97, the pulp and paper concessions with similar
peat proportions as the Project Area were identified (see table 79 above and table 88 below). The
deforestation agents in this case are the forest plantation companies in Indonesia who manage
IUPHHK-HT licenses for the development of plantations. There are numerous companies of this type
in Sumatra, Kalimantan and Papua. In Riau Province alone there are 54 companies 98 operating
IUPHHK-HT licenses (see table 60 above). APRIL has also prepared a LiDAR-based DEM for the
Kampar Peninsula and this has been analysed to confirm that the concessions have met the slope
and elevation requirements. To determine which of the remaining concessions met the forest type
and forest cover percentage criteria, medium-resolution satellite imagery was used. Table 88 shows
proxy area requirements based on the Project Area’s land cover.

Page 182 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Project area Reference region Requirement

89.8% forest cover At least 79.1% forest cover
100% peat At least 80% peat
100% of area in the 0-500m At least 80% of the area must fall
class in the 0-500m class
100% of area has “gentle” At least 80% of the area must
(slope<15%) slopes have “gentle” slopes
Table 88- Reference region selection criteria

Step 1.2. - Area of planned deforestation

The area of planned deforestation is described in section 3.3.3 called “REDD and WRC
boundaries”. This area applies to all forested land within the plantation development (“development
area”) within the geographical boundaries of the project. The APD boundaries are generated by
intersecting the forest area stratification boundaries with the planned plantation development
boundaries and identifying all areas of forest subject to planned deforestation. The specific areas
for planned deforestation RWE+REDD and CIW+REDD activities are described in sections 4.1.7 and
4.1.9 respectively.

Map 41 -Plantation Development Program RER to HTI Operation Plan Map

Page 183 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Step 1.3. - Rate of planned deforestation

The Project has prepared a baseline plan for the development of plantations based on:

1. Allocation of land to conservation area as required by law. This includes the complete protection
of primary Peat Dome Forest in PT. GAN concession, the allocation of legally mandated buffer
zones around protection areas adjacent to the RER Project Area, and the establishment of large
riparian zones around rivers, streams, and other significant water bodies.
2. Identification of development areas, outside of the conservation areas, for conversion to forest
plantation and its associated infrastructure. This maximum size of development area within
each forest concession was limited to less than 90% of total land area to allow for the
establishment of minimum area of conservation areas.
3. 7-year development plan based on a logical development sequence across all 4 concessions.
The development sequence starts in the centre and south of the Project Area, and then
progresses north and east/west in large incremental steps. This reflects the requirement to
develop the plantations in conjunction with infrastructure starting from one point and then
developing infrastructure and plantations on a sequential basis. The plantations are likely to be
managed on a 5-year rotation, but a further 2 years was expected to be needed to complete the
development of the most distant areas.
The baseline management plan is a valid and reasonable proposition, meeting Indonesian legal
requirements, permissible under the regulations, practical in terms of plantation siting and practical
implementation, and technically feasible from an operational perspective.

Using the module BL-PL, a total of 6 suitable proxy areas were identified (see Table 89).

Reference Area in Deforestat Concession Timestep Forest at Timestep Forest at

Region ha ion Rate Grant Date 1 date Timestep 2 date Timestep
(%/year) 1 (ha) 2 (ha)
PT. RAPP
11,339 7.28% 2009 2011 11,352 2016 6,400
(Tasik Belat)
PT. Peranap
Timber 32,527 4.30% 2002 2006 32,343 2014 19,762
(Serapung)
PT. Essa
Indah Timber 10,023 7.60% 2003 2006 9,822 2014 2,966
(Serapung)
PT.
Madukoro
14,903 13.55% 2003 2006 14,867 2008 8,810
Lestari
(Tasik)
PT. Harapan
5,084 41.21% 2003 2006 5,061 2006 2,965
Jaya (Tasik)
PT. RAPP
(Meranti East 44,170 6.54% 2009 2009 32,363 2016 15,290
and West)
Average 8.46
RER Project
130,090 8.24 2016 2016 128,801 2023 43,097
Area
Table 89- Summary of suitable reference regions

The baseline deforestation rate was calculated using project equation 11. The equation originated
from equation 4 of module VMD0006 BL-PL.

Page 184 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The average projected annual deforestation rate for the proxy areas was estimated to be 7.6%. As
noted above, all of these concessions have been developed by the APRIL group in areas adjacent to
the RER project. The identical methods were used for planning plantation development, and this
has resulted in similar deforestation rates in the proxy plantations as was calculated for the RER
Project baseline.

Step 1.4 - Likelihood of planned deforestation

Since all pulpwood plantation concessions are zoned for deforestation, are under the legal control
of the concessionaire, for the duration of the concession license, the “likelihood of deforestation”
(L-Di) is assumed to be equal to 100%. Proprietary concession management documents controlled
by APRIL are also available to provide further proof of this.

Step 1.5 - Risk of abandonment

To assess the risk of abandonment, 6 proxy areas with concession grants dating from at least ten
years before the Project Start Date were selected using the criteria outlined in §5 part 1.5 of
VMD0006 v1.3 and undertaking the analysis set forth in § 4.3.2.3. Landsat 5 TM, Landsat 7 ETM+,
and Landsat 8 OLI imagery was downloaded for three time-steps and visually analysed to determine
if any areas were abandoned for forest regrowth. All 6 proxy areas showed clear signs of continued
deforestation and plantation activities for all three time-steps. Furthermore, APRIL has “directly
applicable existing data” generated from its own and its supply partner’s operating records that
show that none of the proxy areas have been abandoned. Additional verified management,
operational and financial records are available to support this position. Therefore, the VMD0006
v1.2 (BL-PL) module is applicable to this Project.

Step 1.6 - Annual area of deforestation

The annual area of deforestation in the RER Project baseline is 8.2% over 7 years; although the
annual deforestation in the baseline plan varies year on year to accommodate practical

Page 185 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

considerations of plantation development and on the ground constraints. The annual area of
deforestation in the baseline can be validated using project equation 12 applied to both the
baseline and the proxy areas. Project equation 12 was obtained from equation 5 of module
VMD0006 BL-PL.

The annual rate of deforestation is expected to be 8.24%, which is in line with the average rate of
deforestation of the proxy areas 8.46% and in the middle of the range of deforestation rates of the
6 proxy areas, between 4.3%-41.21%.

Based on this information, we assume the Baseline Plantation Development programme (see table
90 below) prepared by the Project Proponents for the RER baseline is valid, reasonable, verifiable,
similar to other concession areas in the area, and justified.

Plantation Development Program

Gross development area (ha)
Year
Total GAN GCN SMN TBOT
2016 15,079 0 3,582 4,365 7,132
2017 14,236 0 3,306 4,461 6,469
2018 15,841 1,499 3,513 4,276 6,552
2019 16,103 1,528 3,626 4,388 6,561
2020 14,735 1,020 3,513 3,746 6,455
2021 1,223 1,223 0 0 0
2022 1,209 1,209 0 0 0
Total Gross Planted Area 78,425 6,480 17,541 21,236 33,169
Other Land Uses
Buffer Zones 4,751 0 417 3,292 1,042
Riparian Zones 11,264 1450.81 2165.65 1443.4 6204.11
Protect Peat Dome 35,649 28,594 0 6,804 251
Total Conservation Area 51,664 30,045 2,583 11,540 7,497
Total Concession Areas 130,090 36,525 20,123 32,776 40,666
Table 90- Baseline Plantation Development Program

Note that the rate of deforestation in the 7-year development plan above is entirely within the
predicted planned deforestation rates documented in the Proxy Area Assessment in section 4.1.2.2
above.

Page 186 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Part 2 - Baseline Carbon Stock Change

The Project next applies Part 2 – Baseline Carbon Stock Change as per VMD0006 (BL-PL). For
terrestrial carbon pools, stock changes in each pool are calculated by subtracting post-
deforestation carbon stocks from forest carbon stocks using project equations 14 to 19, which were
respectively attained from equations 6 to 11 of VMD0006 BL-PL.

Page 187 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Note that non-tree vegetation/biomass, deadwood, and litter are not included in the project. Soil
organic carbon is not calculated for APWD-REDD projects under this methodology.

Stock changes in above ground biomass are emitted at the time of deforestation. Following
deforestation, emissions from below ground biomass are calculated as being emitted at an annual
rate of 10% of stock change for 10 years. Project equation 20 is acquired from equation 13 of
VMD0006 BL-PL.

Note that wood products pool, non-tree vegetation/biomass, deadwood, and litter are not included
in the project. Soil organic carbon is not calculated for APWD-REDD projects under this
methodology.

Page 188 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Emissions Calculations from Planned Deforestation (REDD)

The baseline net GHG emissions from terrestrial carbon pools for planned deforestation are
calculated as follows:

Project equation 13 is obtained from equation 1 of module VMD0006 BL-PL.

In this project, we do not include emissions from fossil fuel emissions or biomass burning. However,
we assume that fertilizer will be applied to plantation areas in the baseline scenario only and
assume that some N2O emissions would occur. Nonetheless, as VM0007 in table 7 at §5.4.2,
indicates, we should include N 2O as a carbon pool but it may be excluded from the accounting if it is
“excluded from the baseline” so long as fertilizer use is not enhanced as a leakage avoidance
mechanism. As such §5, Part 3 of PL-PL Green House Gas Emissions is not used.

In order to calculate the emissions from deforestation we use the following approach:

Determine the annual area of planned plantation development and associated deforestation for
RWE+REDD and CIW+REDD baseline scenarios by land cover strata. The land-use change and
associated deforestation for the whole project area is summarized in the table below.

Land Cover Description Area Area Land-Use

Strata Beginning Baseline Change
(ha)
Acacia Plantation and associated infrastructure on
drained peatland. This stratum represents typical
Acacia plantations on peatland in Indonesia. For
this stratum, drainage is required, and forest
Acacia
covers are removed if present. Acacia planting 0 78,425 78,425
Plantation
starts in the same year as deforestation. The
development of drainage constructions is
assumed to happen just before- or at the same
year as the deforestation/planting.

Page 189 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Peatlands cover in high-density peat dome forests.

Peat Dome Most of this forest type is allocated for
23,748 22,825 -923
Forest conservation, but some areas will be cleared for
plantation development.
Peatlands cover in high-density natural forests.
Dense Most of this forest type is allocated for conversion
Swamp to Acacia plantation, but some areas will be 19,287 4,151 -15,136
Forest retained for conservation in riparian zones and
buffer zones.
Peatlands cover in medium-density / moderately
Medium degraded natural forests. Most of this forest type
Swamp is allocated for conversion to Acacia plantation, 63,328 18,955 -44,373
Forest but some areas will be retained for conservation in
riparian zones and buffer zones.
Peatlands cover in low density / highly degraded
Sparse natural forests. Most of this forest type is
Swamp allocated for conversion to Acacia plantation, but 22,439 4,474 -17,965
Forest some areas will be retained for conservation in
riparian zones and buffer zones.
Non-Forest. This stratum represents peatlands
where forest covers have been removed, i.e.
Non-Forest bareland. It is assumed that this stratum remains 1,230 1,200 -30
largely unchanged since the project start date,
although it is likely to naturally regenerate itself.
Water bodies. This stratum represents lakes and
Water Body rivers. Rivers and lakes remain unchanged during 59 59 0
the project period.
Total 130,090 130,090 0
Table 91- Land-Use Change of all Stratum

4. We calculate the quantity of the average per hectare above ground biomass (AGB) and its
CO2 equivalent GHG emissions from the cleared forest using the forest inventory data. This
is reported separately and summarised below. The conversion factor for biomass weight to
molecular carbon weight is 0.4799 and the conversion factor for molecular carbon to CO 2E is
3.667100. The total above ground biomass emissions in CO 2E from deforestation is
calculated by multiplying the area of each land cover stratum deforested each year by the
average AGB for the stratum.

Average AGB
Land Cover Strata
(t.ha-1) (t.C.ha-1) (t.CO 2E.ha-1)
Peat Dome Forest 199.3 93.7 343.5
Dense Swamp Forest 150.3 70.6 259.0
Medium Swamp Forest 112.7 53.0 194.2
Sparse Swamp Forest 78.4 36.8 135.1
Non-Forest and Water Bodies 0 0.0 0.0
Table 92- Average AGB of all Stratum

5. The below ground biomass emissions in CO 2E are calculated by multiplying the above
ground biomass estimate for each of each land cover stratum deforested by the appropriate
root to shoot ratio. This is described in the table below. The total below ground biomass
emissions in CO2E from deforestation is calculated by multiplying the area of each land
cover stratum deforested by the average AGB for the stratum.

Page 190 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Forest type Root to shoot ratio

Dense Swamp Forest 30.54%

Medium Swamp Forest 28.24%
Sparse Swamp Forest 28.24%
Peat Dome Forest 30.54%
Source: Krisnawati et al. (2015). Standard Methods
for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Forests and Peatlands in Indonesia (Version 2).
Table 2-3. Indonesian National Carbon Accounting
System.
Table 93- Root to shoot ratio of different forest types

Average BGB
Land Cover Strata
(t.ha-1) (t.C.ha-1) (t.CO 2E.ha-1)
Peat Dome Forest 60.9 28.6 104.9
Dense Swamp Forest 45.9 21.6 79.1
Medium Swamp Forest 31.8 15.0 54.9
Sparse Swamp Forest 22.1 10.4 38.2
Non-Forest and Water Bodies 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 94- Average BGB of all Stratum

Baseline Emissions from WRC (BL-PEAT)

The methods for estimating net carbon stock changes and assessing GHG emissions in the baseline
scenario from WRC activities (RWE and CIW) are described in Module BL-PEAT, §5.2 through §5.5
and are set forth below.

Area of drained peat at project commencement

At the commencement of the project, a total of 146 km of legacy canals, covering were in place in
the RER project area. This drained approximately 9,106.4 ha of peatland. The drainage status at
the commencement of the project is described in section 3.3.4.3 entitled “Stratification of Drained
Peat and Non-Drained Peatland”. These areas are stratified into RWE and RWE-REDD areas
respectively and the areas are described in sections 4.1.6 and 4.1.7 respectively.

Area of peat drained by plantation development

Density Width Area

Canal type
(m/ha) (m) (m2/ha)
Main canal 1.87 12 22.14
Branch canal 12.12 7.64 92.57
Perimeter canal 0.50 5.42 2.71
Large field drains 12.50 2.00 25.00
Small field drains 53.33 1.2 64.00
Source: APRIL Planning Department

Table 95- The dimensions and density of new canals created during the baseline development

1. The development plan for the 4 concessions has been developed as one contiguous block
and with an integrated operational plan. The plantation development is planned to cover 7

Page 191 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

years, starting in the southern-central part of the concessions, and progressing south to
north, and expanding east and west.
2. Division of the Acacia plantation area of each assumed agent’s concession into 7 planting
years (termed Blok RKT, Rencana Kerja Tahunan) over the four concessions, resulting in 20
Major blocks in the Project Area.
3. It is assumed all the natural forest areas within the development area will be clear-felled
and developed into either plantation or infrastructure.

Conservation Baseline Development Programme Areas

Block Total (ha)
Area Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
PT. GAN 36,525 30,045 6,480 0 0 1,499 1,528 1,020 1,223 1,209
PT. GCN 20,123 2,583 17,541 3,582 3,306 3,513 3,626 3,513 0 0
PT. SMN 32,776 11,540 21,236 4,365 4,461 4,276 4,388 3,746 0 0
PT. TBOT 40,666 7,497 33,169 7,132 6,469 6,552 6,561 6,455 0 0
Total 130,090 51,664 78,426 15,079 14,236 15,841 16,103 14,735 1,223 1,209
Table 96- Baseline area table

All Canals and

Legacy Canals Plantation Canals and Drains
Drains
Large Small
Year Main Branch Perimeter
Length Area field field Area Length Area
canals canals canals
drains drains
(km) (ha) (km) (ha) (km) (ha)
2014 146.0 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 146.0 2.9
2015 146.0 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 146.0 2.9
2016 121.2 2.4 28.2 182.8 7.5 188.5 804.2 31.7 1,332.3 34.1
2017 91.6 1.8 54.7 355.4 14.6 366.4 1,563.5 61.2 2,446.2 63.0
2018 57.6 1.2 84.3 547.4 22.6 564.4 2,408.3 94.0 3,684.6 95.2
2019 36.7 0.7 114.4 742.6 30.6 765.7 3,267.1 127.0 4,957.1 127.8
2020 2.4 0.0 141.9 921.2 38.0 949.9 4,053.0 157.7 6,106.4 157.8
2021 0.0 0.0 144.2 936.0 38.6 965.2 4,118.2 159.6 6,202.2 159.6
2022 0.0 0.0 146.4 950.7 39.2 980.3 4,182.7 162.1 6,299.3 162.1
2023 0.0 0.0 146.4 950.7 39.2 980.3 4,182.7 162.1 6,299.3 162.1
2024 0.0 0.0 146.4 950.7 39.2 980.3 4,182.7 162.1 6,299.3 162.1
2025 – 2072 0.0 0.0 146.4 950.7 39.2 980.3 4,182.7 162.1 6,299.3 162.1
Table 97- Baseline Plantation canals and Drains area table

Assessing Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Terrestrial Carbon Pools from
Peatland Rewetting and Conservation Projects

The Project applies VMD0042 (BL-PEAT) in assessing GHG emissions in the baseline scenario
according to §5.2 of the module for RWE and CIW activity.

The Project also notes that it has followed the requirements of VM0007 v1.6 § 5.4.2 and included
N20 as a carbon pool because of the potential for Nitrogen fertilizer application in the baseline
scenario. However, because no nitrogen fertilizer application occurs in the project scenario, it has
been excluded from the GHG emission reduction accounting as suggested in table 7, § 5.4.2 of
VM0007 v1.6.

Page 192 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Emissions Calculations for RWE and CIW

Total Baseline Emissions from Peatlands
The baseline net GHG emissions from peat in the baseline are calculated as follows: Project
equations 21 - 24 originated from equations 1 - 4 of VMD006 BL-PEAT.

Page 193 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

In this baseline, we include net GHG emissions from peatland degradation and from ditches. We do
not include emissions from peat burning because it is considered optional.101.

Baseline Emissions from Peat Drainage

GHG emissions from the peat soil per stratum as a result of drainage in the baseline scenario are
estimated as per project equation 25, obtained from equation 6 of VMD0042 BL-PEAT:

The annual emissions of CO 2 and CH4 from drained peat soil are estimated using the IPCC
allometrics.

Land Use GHG Emission factor

tonnes CO2-C
CO2-C 20
Fully drained peatland areas ha-1 yr-1
CH4 2.7 kg CH4 ha-1 yr-1
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. 2013 Supplement to the 2006
IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: Wetlands. Methodological
guidance on lands with wet and drained soils and constructed wetlands for
wastewater treatment. Gyldenkaerne, S. and Lin, E. (eds). Japan: Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies [IGES].
Table 98- Emission factors from drained peat soil

Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands
GHG emissions from ditches and other water bodies in the baseline are derived on the basis of
ditched area and area of open water combined with an emission factor as per project equation 26
obtained from equation 7 of VMD0042 BL-PEAT:

Page 194 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The annual emissions of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and CH 4 from ditches and other open
water bodies are estimated using IPCC allometrics.

Land Use GHG Emission factor

Degradation CH4 2,259
Dissolved
Surface area of canals
Organic DOC 0.82
Carbon
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. 2013 Supplement to the 2006
IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: Wetlands. Methodological
guidance on lands with wet and drained soils and constructed wetlands for wastewater
treatment. Gyldenkaerne, S. and Lin, E. (eds). Japan: Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies [IGES].
Table 99- Emission factors from surface area of canals

DOC is then converted to CO2E by multiplication using the CO 2 to molecular C conversion factor of
3.667102 .

Baseline Emissions – RWE

Baseline emissions from peat soils

Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains in the baseline

The RWE activity encompasses landscapes that have been drained by legacy canals and which will
be rewetted by a program of canal blocking. There is no planned deforestation under this scenario
because the areas are either in non-forest or are forested without any planned deforestation.

Under the baseline, the canals will be retained (in contrast to blocking under the project scenario)
resulting in peat soil GHG emissions from peatland degradation and GHG emissions from drains.

The area of drained peatland in the RWE activity is 2,478.6 hectares.

Drained area estimates

(Apeatsoil-BSL,I,t)
Year
Area drained by Area drained by
legacy canals plantation canals
2006 2,479 0

Page 195 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

2007 2,479 0
2008 2,479 0
2009 2,479 0
2010 2,479 0
2011 2,479 0
2012 2,479 0
2013 2,479 0
2014 2,479 0
2015 2,479 0
2016 2,479 0
2017 2,479 0
2018 2,479 0
2019 2,479 0
2020 2,479 0
2021 2,479 0
2022 2,479 0
2023 2,479 0
2024 2,479 0
2025 –
2,479 0
2072
Table 100- Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains in the baseline

The surface area of the canals in RWE activity is as follows:

Surface area of drainage canals (ha)

(Aditch-BSL,i,t)
Year
Surface Area of Surface Area of
Legacy Canals (ha) Plantation Canals (ha)
2014 37.6 0.0
2015 37.6 0.0
2016 37.6 0.0
2017 37.6 0.0
2018 37.6 0.0
2019 37.6 0.0
2020 37.6 0.0
2021 37.6 0.0
2022 37.6 0.0
2023 37.6 0.0
2024 37.6 0.0
2025 – 2072 37.6 0.0
Table 101- Canal surface area statistics

Baseline emissions from peat soil

Baseline GHG emissions from peat soils

(GHproxy-BSL,i,t)
Total GHG CO2-C CH4
Year (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E)
(GHGproxy-BSLi,t) (GHGproxy-CO2,i,t) (GHGproxy-CH4,i,t )
2006 181,966 181,779 187
2007 181,966 181,779 187
2008 181,966 181,779 187
2009 181,966 181,779 187
2010 181,966 181,779 187

Page 196 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

2011 181,966 181,779 187

2012 181,966 181,779 187
2013 181,966 181,779 187
2014 181,966 181,779 187
2015 181,966 181,779 187
2016 181,966 181,779 187
2017 181,966 181,779 187
2018 181,966 181,779 187
2019 181,966 181,779 187
2020 181,966 181,779 187
2021 181,966 181,779 187
2022 181,966 181,779 187
2023 181,966 181,779 187
2024 181,966 181,779 187
2025 – 2071 181,966 181,779 187
2072 181,966 181,779 187
Table 102- Baseline GHG emissions from peat soils

Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands
Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in
peatlands
(GHpeatditch-BSL,i,t )
Total GHG DOC
CH4
(t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E)
Year (t CO 2-E)
(GHGpeatditch- (GHGpeatditch-
(GHGpeatditch-CH4,i,t)
BSLi,t ) CO2,i,t )
2006 498 23 475
2007 498 23 475
2008 498 23 475
2009 498 23 475
2010 498 23 475
2011 498 23 475
2012 498 23 475
2013 498 23 475
2014 498 23 475
2015 498 23 475
2016 498 23 475
2017 498 23 475
2018 498 23 475
2019 498 23 475
2020 498 23 475
2021 498 23 475
2022 498 23 475
2023 498 23 475
2024 498 23 475
2025 – 2072 498 23 475
Table 103- Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands

Baseline Emissions from Peat Burning

Emissions from peat burning are excluded from the baseline assessment as there is no significant
history or threat of peat or biomass burning in the baseline period. VM0007 ver 1.6 at table 9 in
section 5.4.4 also indicates that “it is conservative to exclude”.

Page 197 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Baseline Emissions - RWE+REDD

Baseline emissions from deforestation

Area of land deforested in baseline

The RWE+REDD activity encompasses landscapes that have been drained by legacy canals and
which will be rewetted by a program of canal blocking. 100% of the RWE+REDD area will have
planned deforestation under this scenario.

The area of land planned for deforestation and conversion to plantations under RWE+REDD is
6,627.8 hectares.

Areas converted to plantations by land cover and year

(Aplanned,i)
Land Cover Strata
Planting Year
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Total
Peat dome 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.8
Dense swamp
forest 49.7 229.4 170.5 574.5 78.0 0.0 0.0 1,102.2
Medium swamp
forest 626.2 682.0 684.2 340.1 319.3 13.0 0.0 2,664.7
Sparse swamp
forest 446.5 434.0 679.5 39.7 1,161.2 98.2 0.0 2,859.1
Non-forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Water Body 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 1,122.4 1,345.5 1,534.2 954.3 1,560.3 111.2 0.0 6,627.8
Table 104- Areas converted to plantations by land cover and year in the baseline

The annual areas of land planned for deforestation and conversion to plantations under
RWE+REDD were calculated by concession license are shown in the table below:

Areas converted to plantations by concession, land cover and year (Aplanned,i)

Concession Land Cover Strata Planting Year
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Total
Peat dome 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dense swamp forest 0.0 0.0 34.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.8
Medium swamp
PT GAN
forest 0.0 0.0 68.1 2.0 0.6 13.0 0.0 83.7
Sparse swamp forest 0.0 0.0 340.8 0.8 152.3 98.2 0.0 592.1
Non-forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dense swamp forest 11.6 142.8 105.0 563.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 823.2
Medium swamp
forest 23.3 193.6 178.8 237.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 633.2
PT GCN
Sparse swamp forest 95.6 352.8 136.6 18.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 603.1
Non-forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Water Body 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dense swamp forest 36.1 86.6 30.7 10.8 75.9 0.0 0.0 240.1
Medium swamp
forest 259.1 488.4 434.8 100.7 259.1 0.0 0.0 1,542.2
PT SMN
Sparse swamp forest 68.3 81.2 162.2 20.8 590.7 0.0 0.0 923.2
Non-forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Water Body 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Page 198 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Peat dome 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.8
Dense swamp forest 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 4.2
Medium swamp
PT TBOT forest 343.7 0.0 2.5 0.0 59.5 0.0 0.0 405.7
Sparse swamp forest 282.6 0.0 39.9 0.0 418.2 0.0 0.0 740.8
Non-Forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Water Body 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 1,122.4 1,345.5 1,534.2 954.3 1,560.3 111.2 0.0 6,627.8
Table 105- Areas converted to plantations by concession, land cover and year in RWE+REDD scenarios

Changes in terrestrial above ground tree carbon pools in the baseline

The carbon stock changes in above ground biomass are calculated according to the methods
described in 4.1.3.2 and summarized in the table below.

Above ground tree carbon stock in the baseline (C AB_tree_bsl,i)

Above ground tree biomass in baseline Baseline carbon stock change in
(CAB_tree_bsl,i) above ground biomass
Year Peat Dense Medium Sparse
AGB CO2-C CO2-E (t)
dome swamp swamp swamp
(t) (t) (∆CAB_tree_bsl,i)
forest forest forest forest
Pre-2016 352 165,662 300,315 224,156
2016 352 158,189 229,747 189,148 113,048 53,133 194,838
2017 352 123,704 152,882 155,125 145,374 68,326 250,551
2018 352 98,081 75,774 101,849 156,006 73,323 268,874
2019 352 11,728 37,442 98,738 127,796 60,064 220,254
2020 0 0 1,461 7,698 139,102 65,378 239,741
2021 0 0 0 0 9,159 4,305 15,785
2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 690,485 324,528 1,190,044
Table 106- Above ground tree carbon stock in the baseline

Changes in terrestrial below ground tree carbon pools in the baseline

The carbon stock changes in below ground biomass are calculated according to the methods
described in 4.1.3.2 and summarized in the table below.

Below ground tree carbon stock in the baseline (C BB_tree_bsl,i)

Below ground tree biomass in baseline Baseline carbon stock change in
(CBB_tree_bsl,i) below ground biomass
Year Peat Dense Medium Sparse
BGB CO2-C CO2-E (t)
dome swamp swamp swamp
(t) (t) (∆CBB_tree_bsl,i)
forest forest forest forest
Pre-
108 50,594 84,795 63,291
2016
2016 108 48,311 64,870 53,407 32,092 15,083 55,310
2017 108 37,779 43,167 43,800 41,842 19,666 72,114
2018 108 29,954 21,395 28,757 44,639 20,980 76,935
2019 108 3,582 10,572 27,879 38,074 17,895 65,620
2020 0 0 412 2,174 39,554 18,591 68,172
2021 0 0 0 0 2,586 1,215 4,457
Total 198,787 93,430 342,608
Table 107- Below ground tree carbon stock in the baseline

Page 199 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The GHG emissions from depletion of BGB is shown in the table below.

Below ground tree carbon stock depletion (C BB_tree_bsl,i)

Baseline carbon stock change in below
Annual below ground biomass by depletion year ()
ground biomass
Year
CO2-E (t)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 AGB (t) CO2-C (t)
(∆CBB_tree_bsl,i)
2016 3,209 3,209 1,508 5,531
2017 4,184 3,209 7,393 3,475 12,742
2018 4,464 4,184 3,209 11,857 5,573 20,436
2019 3,807 4,464 4,184 3,209 15,665 7,362 26,998
2020 3,955 3,807 4,464 4,184 3,209 19,620 9,221 33,815
2021 259 3,955 3,807 4,464 4,184 3,209 19,879 9,343 34,261
2022 0 259 3,955 3,807 4,464 4,184 3,209 19,879 9,343 34,261
2023 0 0 259 3,955 3,807 4,464 4,184 3,209 19,879 9,343 34,261
2024 0 0 0 259 3,955 3,807 4,464 4,184 3,209 19,879 9,343 34,261
2025 0 0 0 0 259 3,955 3,807 4,464 4,184 3,209 19,879 9,343 34,261
2026 0 0 0 0 0 259 3,955 3,807 4,464 4,184 16,670 7,835 28,730
2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 259 3,955 3,807 4,464 12,485 5,868 21,518
2028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 259 3,955 3,807 8,021 3,770 13,825
2029 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 259 3,955 4,214 1,981 7,263
2030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 259 259 122 446
2031 -
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2072
19,87 19,87 19,87 19,87 19,87 19,87 19,87 19,87 19,87
Total 19,879 198,787 93,430 342,608
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Table 108- Below ground tree carbon stock depletion

Page 200 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from deforestation in the baseline

The Project has followed the requirements of VM0007 v1.6 § 5.4.2 and included N20 as a carbon
pool because of the potential for Nitrogen fertilizer application in the baseline scenario. However,
because no nitrogen fertilizer application occurs in the project scenario, it has been excluded from
the GHG emission reduction accounting as suggested in table 7, § 5.4.2 of VM0007 v1.6.

Baseline emissions from peat soils

Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains in the baseline

The RWE+REDD activity encompasses landscapes that have been drained by legacy canals and
which will be rewetted by a program of canal blocking.

Under the baseline, the legacy canals will be replaced by a plantation drainage canals (in contrast
to blocking under the project scenario) resulting in continued peat soil GHG emissions from
peatland degradation and GHG emissions from drains.

The annual areas area of land planned for deforestation and conversion to plantations under
RWE+REDD is 6,627.8 hectares.

Drained area estimates (ha) (A peatsoil-BSL,I,t)

Year
Area drained by Area drained by
legacy canals plantation canals
2006 6,628 0
2007 6,628 0
2008 6,628 0
2009 6,628 0
2010 6,628 0
2011 6,628 0
2012 6,628 0
2013 6,628 0
2014 6,628 0
2015 6,628 0
2016 5,505 1,122
2017 4,160 2,468
2018 2,626 4,002
2019 1,671 4,956
2020 111 6,517
2021 0 6,628
2022 0 6,628
2023 0 6,628
2024 0 6,628
2025 – 2072 0 6,628
Table 109- Drained area estimates of legacy & plantation canals

Page 201 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The surface area of the canals in RWE+REDD activity is as follows:

Surface area of drainage canals (ha)

(Aditch-BSL,i,t)
Year
Surface Area of Legacy Canals Surface Area of
(ha) Plantation Canals (ha)
2014 21.7 0.0
2015 21.7 2.3
2016 18.0 5.1
2017 13.6 8.3
2018 8.6 10.2
2019 5.5 13.5
2020 0.4 13.7
2021 0.0 13.7
2022 0.0 13.7
2023 0.0 13.7
2024 0.0 13.7
2025 - 2072 0.0 13.7
Table 110- Canal surface area statistics

Baseline emissions from peat soil

Baseline GHG emissions from peat soils
(GHproxy-BSL,i,t)
Total GHG CO2-C CH 4
Year (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E)
(GHGproxy-BSLi,t) (GHGproxy-CO2,i,t) (GHGproxy-CH4,i,t)
2006 486,587 486,086 501
2007 486,587 486,086 501
2008 486,587 486,086 501
2009 486,587 486,086 501
2010 486,587 486,086 501
2011 486,587 486,086 501
2012 486,587 486,086 501
2013 486,587 486,086 501
2014 486,587 486,086 501
2015 486,587 486,086 501
2016 486,587 486,086 501
2017 486,587 486,086 501
2018 486,587 486,086 501
2019 486,587 486,086 501
2020 486,587 486,086 501
2021 486,587 486,086 501
2022 486,587 486,086 501
2023 486,587 486,086 501
2024 486,587 486,086 501
2025 - 2072 486,587 486,086 501
Table 111- Baseline GHG emissions from peat soils

Page 202 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands
Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in
peatlands
(GHpeatditch-BSL,i,t)
Total GHG DOC
CH4
(t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E)
Year (t CO 2-E)
(GHGpeatditch- (GHGpeatditch-
(GHGpeatditch-CH4,i,t )
BSLi,t ) CO2,i,t )
2006 1,437 65 1,372
2007 1,437 65 1,372
2008 1,437 65 1,372
2009 1,437 65 1,372
2010 1,437 65 1,372
2011 1,437 65 1,372
2012 1,437 65 1,372
2013 1,437 65 1,372
2014 1,437 65 1,372
2015 1,437 65 1,372
2016 1,591 72 1,518
2017 1,532 70 1,462
2018 1,450 66 1,384
2019 1,248 57 1,191
2020 1,255 57 1,198
2021 932 42 889
2022 908 41 866
2023 908 41 866
2024 908 41 866
2025 - 2072 908 41 866
Table 112- Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands

Baseline Emissions from Peat Burning

Emissions from peat burning are excluded from the baseline assessment as there is no significant
history or threat of peat or biomass burning in the baseline period. VM0007 ver 1.6 at table 9 in
section 5.4.4 also indicates that “it is conservative to exclude”.

Baseline Emissions – CIW

Baseline emissions from peat soils

Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains in the baseline

The CIW activity encompasses landscapes that are undrained, and which will be avoiding drainage
under the project. The area has no forest cover and is therefore ineligible for REDD.

Under the baseline, canals will be built, and the area drained resulting in peat soil GHG emissions
from peatland degradation and GHG emissions from drains.

The area of avoided wetland drainage in the CIW activity is 5.1 hectares.
The length of canals and the surface area of the canals from avoided wetland drainage in CIW
activity is as follows:

Page 203 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Drained area estimates (ha)

(Apeatsoil-BSL,I,t)
Year
Area drained by Area drained by
legacy canals plantation canals
2006 0 0
2007 0 0
2008 0 0
2009 0 0
2010 0 0
2011 0 0
2012 0 0
2013 0 0
2014 0 0
2015 0 0
2016 0 0
2017 0 2
2018 0 3
2019 0 3
2020 0 5
2021 0 5
2022 0 5
2023 0 5
2024 0 5
2025 - 2072 0 5
Table 113- Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains

The surface area of the canals in CIW activity is as follows:

Surface area of drainage canals (ha)

(Aditch-BSL,i,t)
Year
Surface Area of Legacy Surface Area of
Canals (ha) Plantation Canals (ha)
2014 0.000 0.000
2015 0.000 0.000
2016 0.000 0.001
2017 0.000 0.003
2018 0.000 0.007
2019 0.000 0.007
2020 0.000 0.011
2021 0.000 0.011
2022 0.000 0.011
2023 0.000 0.011
2024 0.000 0.011
2025 - 2072 0.000 0.011
Table 114- Canal surface area statistics

Page 204 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Baseline emissions from peat soil

Baseline emissions from peat soil Baseline GHG emissions from peat soils
(GHproxy-BSL,i,t)
Total GHG CO2-C CH4
Year (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E)
(GHGproxy-BSLi,t) (GHGproxy-CO2,i,t) (GHGproxy-CH4,i,t)
2006 0 0 0
2007 0 0 0
2008 0 0 0
2009 0 0 0
2010 0 0 0
2011 0 0 0
2012 0 0 0
2013 0 0 0
2014 0 0 0
2015 0 0 0
2016 18 18 0
2017 120 120 0
2018 239 239 0
2019 239 239 0
2020 376 375 0
2021 376 375 0
2022 376 375 0
2023 376 375 0
2024 376 375 0
2025 - 2072 376 375 0
Table 115- Baseline GHG emissions from peat soils

Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands
Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands
(GHpeatditch-BSL,i,t)
Total GHG DOC CH4
Year (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E)
(GHGpeatditch-BSLi,t) (GHGpeatditch-CO2,i,t) (GHGpeatditch-CH4,i,t)
2006 0 0 0
2007 0 0 0
2008 0 0 0
2009 0 0 0
2010 0 0 0
2011 0 0 0
2012 0 0 0
2013 0 0 0
2014 0 0 0
2015 0 0 0
2016 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0
2020 1 0 1
2021 1 0 1
2022 1 0 1
2023 1 0 1
2024 1 0 1
2025 - 2072 1 0 1
Table 116- GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands

Page 205 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Baseline Emissions from Peat Burning

Emissions from peat burning are excluded from the baseline assessment as there is no significant
history or threat of peat or biomass burning in the baseline period. VM0007 ver 1.6 at table 9 in
section 5.4.4 also indicates that “it is conservative to exclude”.

Baseline Emissions - CIW+REDD

Baseline emissions from deforestation

Area of land deforested in the baseline

The CIW+REDD activity encompasses landscapes that are undrained and which 100% of the area
will be avoiding wetland drainage and avoiding deforestation under the project.

The total area of land planned for drainage, deforestation and conversion to plantations under
RWE+REDD is 71,768.0 hectares. The area of land planned for deforestation and conversion to
plantations under CIW+REDD is shown in the table below.

Areas converted to plantations by land cover and year

Land Cover (Aplanned,i)
Strata Planting Year
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Total
Peat dome 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 902.1 0.0 0.0 920.9
Dense swamp
forest 2,632.2 2,201.5 3,070.8 3,699.0 2,351.4 8.9 70.0 14,033.7
Medium swamp
forest 9,468.4 6,908.8 8,374.7 8,707.5 6,953.8 467.6 826.8 41,707.6
Sparse swamp
forest 1,846.3 3,777.6 2,846.1 2,722.8 2,965.1 635.4 312.6 15,105.8
Non-forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Water Body 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 13,946.9 12,887.8 14,291.7 15,148.0 13,172.4 1,111.9 1,209.4 71,768.0
Table 117- Areas converted to plantations by land cover and year in the baseline

The annual areas of land planned for deforestation and conversion to plantations under CIW+REDD
by concession license are shown in the table below:

Areas converted to plantations by concession, land cover and year (A planned,i)

Land Cover Planting Year
Concession
Strata Year Year
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total
6 7
Peat dome 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8
Dense swamp
forest 0.0 0.0 379.6 440.0 0.3 8.9 70.0 898.8
Medium
PT GAN
swamp forest 0.0 0.0 465.5 1,022.9 288.3 467.6 826.8 3,071.2
Sparse swamp
forest 0.0 0.0 210.6 43.6 578.2 635.4 312.6 1,780.4
Non-forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dense swamp
PT GCN
forest 1,124.0 997.5 1,888.4 1,934.0 2,031.5 0.0 0.0 7,975.4

Page 206 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Medium
swamp forest 1,636.4 1,078.0 976.8 856.9 1,324.1 0.0 0.0 5,872.1
Sparse swamp
forest 682.4 539.3 214.5 15.6 157.7 0.0 0.0 1,609.5
Non-forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Water Body 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dense swamp
forest 1,014.3 1,128.1 306.0 1,031.1 172.1 0.0 0.0 3,651.6
Medium
swamp forest 2,799.7 2,480.7 3,041.9 3,130.1 2,061.5 0.0 0.0 13,513.8
PT SMN
Sparse swamp
forest 187.4 195.5 299.2 94.0 586.9 0.0 0.0 1,363.0
Non-forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Water Body 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Peat dome 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 902.1 0.0 0.0 902.1
Dense swamp
forest 494.0 75.9 496.8 293.9 147.4 0.0 0.0 1,508.0
Medium
PT TBOT swamp forest 5,032.3 3,350.1 3,890.5 3,697.6 3,280.0 0.0 0.0 19,250.6
Sparse swamp
forest 976.5 3,042.8 2,121.8 2,569.7 1,642.2 0.0 0.0 10,352.9
Non-forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Water Body 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 13,947 12,888 14,292 15,148 13,172 1,112 1,209 71,768.0
Table 118- Areas converted to plantations by concession, land cover and year

Changes in terrestrial above ground tree carbon pools in the baseline

The carbon stock changes in above ground biomass are calculated according to the methods
described above in §4.1.3.2 and summarized in the table below.

Above ground tree carbon stock in the baseline (C AB_tree_bsl,i)

Above ground tree biomass in baseline Baseline carbon stock change in above
(CAB_tree_bsl,i) ground biomass
Year Peat Dense Medium Sparse
AGB CO2-C CO2-E (t)
dome swamp swamp swamp
(t) (t) (∆CAB_tree_bsl,i)
forest forest forest forest
Pre-2016 183,529 2,109,272 4,700,449 1,184,296
2016 183,529 1,713,648 3,633,361 1,039,546 1,607,462 755,507 2,770,444
2017 183,529 1,382,766 2,854,742 743,383 1,405,664 660,662 2,422,648
2018 183,529 921,224 1,910,908 520,247 1,628,511 765,400 2,806,723
2019 179,790 365,268 929,576 306,781 1,754,494 824,612 3,023,853
2020 0 11,860 145,877 74,320 1,549,357 728,198 2,670,301
2021 0 10,520 93,179 24,508 103,851 48,810 178,985
2022 0 0 0 0 128,207 60,257 220,963
Total 8,177,545 3,843,446 14,093,918
Table 119- Changes in above ground tree carbon stock in the baseline

Changes in terrestrial below ground tree carbon pools in the baseline

The carbon stock changes in below ground biomass are calculated according to the methods
described in §4.1.3.2 and summarized in the table below.

Below ground tree carbon stock in the baseline (C BB_tree_bsl,i)

Page 207 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Baseline carbon stock change in below

Below ground tree biomass in baseline (C BB_tree_bsl,i)
ground biomass
Year Dense Medium Sparse
Peat dome BGB CO2-C CO2-E (t)
swamp swamp swamp
forest (t) (t) (∆CBB_tree_bsl,i)
forest forest forest
Pre-
56,050 644,177 1,327,186 334,389
2016
2016 56,050 523,352 1,025,890 293,519 462,990 217,606 797,959
2017 56,050 422,300 806,045 209,896 404,520 190,124 697,186
2018 56,050 281,344 539,551 146,893 470,453 221,113 810,821
2019 54,908 111,554 262,468 86,620 508,287 238,895 876,028
2020 0 3,622 41,189 20,984 449,755 211,385 775,149
2021 0 3,213 26,309 6,920 29,353 13,796 50,590
2022 0 0 0 0 36,442 17,128 62,807
Total 2,361,802 1,110,047 4,070,542
Table 120- Changes in below ground tree carbon stock in the baseline

The GHG emissions from depletion of BGB is shown in the table below.

Page 208 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Below ground tree carbon stock depletion (C BB_tree_bsl,i)

Annual below ground biomass by depletion year () Baseline carbon stock change in below
ground biomass
Year
AGB CO2-C CO2-E (t)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
(t) (t) (∆CBB_tree_bsl,i)
2016 46,299 46,299 21,761 79,796
2017 40,452 46,299 86,751 40,773 149,515
2018 47,045 40,452 46,299 133,796 62,884 230,597
2019 50,829 47,045 40,452 46,299 184,625 86,774 318,200
2020 44,976 50,829 47,045 40,452 46,299 229,601 107,912 395,714
2021 2,935 44,976 50,829 47,045 40,452 46,299 232,536 109,292 400,773
2022 3,644 2,935 44,976 50,829 47,045 40,452 46,299 236,180 111,005 407,054
2023 0 3,644 2,935 44,976 50,829 47,045 40,452 46,299 236,180 111,005 407,054
2024 0 0 3,644 2,935 44,976 50,829 47,045 40,452 46,299 236,180 111,005 407,054
2025 0 0 0 3,644 2,935 44,976 50,829 47,045 40,452 46,299 236,180 111,005 407,054
2026 0 0 0 0 3,644 2,935 44,976 50,829 47,045 40,452 189,881 89,244 327,258
2027 0 0 0 0 0 3,644 2,935 44,976 50,829 47,045 149,429 70,232 257,540
2028 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,644 2,935 44,976 50,829 102,384 48,120 176,457
2029 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,644 2,935 44,976 51,555 24,231 88,855
2030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,644 2,935 6,580 3,092 11,340
2031 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,644 3,644 1,713 6,281
2032 -
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2072
Total 236,180 236,180 236,180 236,180 236,180 236,180 236,180 236,180 236,180 236,180 2,361,802 1,110,047 4,070,542
Table 121- Below ground tree carbon stock depletion

Page 209 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from deforestation in the baseline

The Project has followed the requirements of VM0007 v1.6 § 5.4.2 and included N 2O as a carbon
pool because of the potential for Nitrogen fertilizer application in the baseline scenario. However,
because no nitrogen fertilizer application occurs in the project scenario, it has been excluded from
the GHG emission reduction accounting as suggested in table 7, § 5.4.2 of VM0007 v1.6.

Baseline emissions from peat

Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains in the baseline

The CIW+REDD activity encompasses landscapes that are undrained, and which will be avoiding
drainage under the project. The area has forest cover which will be 100% cleared for plantation
development.

Under the baseline, canals will be built, and the area drained resulting in peat soil GHG emissions
from peatland degradation and GHG emissions from drains.

The area of avoided wetland drainage in the CIW+REDD activity is 71,768.0 hectares.
The length of canals and the surface area of the canals from avoided wetland drainage in CIW
activity is as follows:

Drained area estimates (ha)

(Apeatsoil-BSL,I,t)
Year
Area drained by legacy Area drained by
canals plantation canals
2006 0 0
2007 0 0
2008 0 0
2009 0 0
2010 0 0
2011 0 0
2012 0 0
2013 0 0
2014 0 0
2015 0 0
2016 0 13,947
2017 0 26,835
2018 0 41,126
2019 0 56,274
2020 0 69,447
2021 0 70,559
2022 0 71,768
2023 0 71,768
2024 0 71,768
2025 - 2072 0 71,768
Table 122- Drained area estimates of legacy & plantation canals

Page 210 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The surface area of the canals in CIW+REDD activity is as follows:

Surface area of drainage canals (ha)

(Aditch-BSL,i,t)
Year
Surface Area of Surface Area of
Legacy Canals (ha) Plantation Canals (ha)
2014 0 0.0
2015 0 0.0
2016 0 28.8
2017 0 55.5
2018 0 85.0
2019 0 116.3
2020 0 143.5
2021 0 145.8
2022 0 148.3
2023 0 148.3
2024 0 148.3
2025 -
2072 0 148.3
Table 123- Canal surface area statistics

Baseline emissions from peat soil

Baseline GHG emissions from peat soils

(GHproxy-BSL,i,t)
Total GHG CO2-C CH4
Year (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E)
(GHGproxy-BSLi,t) (GHGproxy-CO2,i,t) (GHGproxy-CH4,i,t )
2006 0 0 0
2007 0 0 0
2008 0 0 0
2009 0 0 0
2010 0 0 0
2011 0 0 0
2012 0 0 0
2013 0 0 0
2014 0 0 0
2015 0 0 0
2016 1,023,922 1,022,867 1,054
2017 1,970,090 1,968,062 2,029
2018 3,019,322 3,016,212 3,109
2019 4,131,421 4,127,167 4,254
2020 5,098,478 5,093,228 5,250
2021 5,180,107 5,174,773 5,334
2022 5,268,894 5,263,469 5,426
2023 5,268,894 5,263,469 5,426
2024 5,268,894 5,263,469 5,426
2025 - 2072 5,268,894 5,263,469 5,426
Table 124- Baseline GHG emissions from peat soils

Page 211 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands
Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in
peatlands
(GHpeatditch-BSL,i,t)
Total GHG DOC
CH4
(t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E)
Year (t CO 2-E)
(GHGpeatditch- (GHGpeatditch-
(GHGpeatditch-CH4,i,t )
BSLi,t ) CO2,i,t )
2006 0 0 0
2007 0 0 0
2008 0 0 0
2009 0 0 0
2010 0 0 0
2011 0 0 0
2012 0 0 0
2013 0 0 0
2014 0 0 0
2015 0 0 0
2016 1,910 87 1,823
2017 3,675 167 3,508
2018 5,632 256 5,376
2019 7,707 350 7,357
2020 9,510 432 9,079
2021 9,663 439 9,224
2022 9,828 446 9,382
2023 9,828 446 9,382
2024 9,828 446 9,382
2025 - 2072 9,828 446 9,382
Table 125- Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands

Baseline Emissions from Peat Burning

Emissions from peat burning are excluded from the baseline assessment as there is no significant
history or threat of peat or biomass burning in the baseline period. VM0007 ver 1.6 at table 9 in
section 5.4.4 also indicates that “it is conservative to exclude”.

Total Baseline Emissions – All Activities

Baseline emissions from deforestation

Area of land deforested in baseline

The RWE+REDD activity encompasses landscapes that have been drained by legacy canals and
which will be rewetted by a program of canal blocking. The areas area of land planned for
deforestation and conversion to plantations is 78,395.9 hectares.

Page 212 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Areas converted to plantations by land cover and year

Land Cover (Aplanned,i)
Strata Planting Year
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Total
Peat dome 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 903.9 0.0 0.0 922.6
Dense swamp
2,681.9 2,430.9 3,241.3 4,273.5 2,429.4 8.9 70.0 15,136.0
forest
Medium swamp
10,094.6 7,590.8 9,058.9 9,047.6 7,273.1 480.6 826.8 44,372.4
forest
Sparse swamp
2,292.8 4,211.6 3,525.7 2,762.5 4,126.3 733.6 312.6 17,964.9
forest
Non-forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Water Body 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 15,069.3 14,233.3 15,825.9 16,102.3 14,732.7 1,223.0 1,209.4 78,395.9
Table 126- Areas converted to plantations by land cover and year in baseline

The annual areas of land planned for deforestation and conversion to plantations under
RWE+REDD were calculated by concession license are shown in the table below:

Areas converted to plantations by concession, land cover and year (Aplanned,i)

Land Cover
Concession Planting Year
Strata
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Total
Peat dome 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8
Dense swamp
0.0 0.0 414.3 440.0 0.3 8.9 70.0 933.5
forest
Medium
PT GAN 0.0 0.0 533.6 1,024.9 289.0 480.6 826.8 3,154.8
swamp forest
Sparse
0.0 0.0 551.5 44.4 730.5 733.6 312.6 2,372.5
swamp forest
Non-forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dense swamp
1,135.6 1,140.4 1,993.5 2,497.7 2,031.5 0.0 0.0 8,798.6
forest
Medium
1,659.7 1,271.6 1,155.6 1,094.3 1,324.1 0.0 0.0 6,505.2
swamp forest
PT GCN
Sparse
778.0 892.1 351.1 33.7 157.7 0.0 0.0 2,212.6
swamp forest
Non-forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Water Body 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dense swamp
1,050.3 1,214.7 336.7 1,042.0 248.1 0.0 0.0 3,891.7
forest
Medium
3,058.8 2,969.1 3,476.7 3,230.8 2,320.6 0.0 0.0 15,056.0
swamp forest
PT SMN
Sparse
255.7 276.7 461.4 114.8 1,177.6 0.0 0.0 2,286.2
swamp forest
Non-forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Water Body 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Peat dome 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 903.9 0.0 0.0 903.9
Dense swamp
496.0 75.9 496.8 293.9 149.5 0.0 0.0 1,512.1
PT TBOT forest
Medium
5,376.1 3,350.1 3,893.0 3,697.6 3,339.5 0.0 0.0 19,656.3
swamp forest

Page 213 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Sparse
1,259.1 3,042.8 2,161.8 2,569.7 2,060.4 0.0 0.0 11,093.7
swamp forest
Non Forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Water Body 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 15,069.3 14,233.3 15,825.9 16,102.3 14,732.7 1,223.0 1,209.4 78,395.9
Table 127- Areas converted to plantations by concession, land cover and year in baseline

Changes in terrestrial above ground tree carbon pools in the baseline

The carbon stock changes in above ground biomass are calculated according to the methods
described in §4.1.3.2 of the PD and summarized in the table below.

Above ground tree carbon stock in the baseline (C AB_tree_bsl,i)

Above ground tree biomass in baseline Baseline carbon stock change in above
(CAB_tree_bsl,i) ground biomass
Year Peat Dense Medium Sparse
AGB CO2-C CO2-E (t)
dome swamp swamp swamp
(t) (t) (∆CAB_tree_bsl,i)
forest forest forest forest
Pre-
183,881 2,274,934 5,000,764 1,408,452
2016
2016 183,881 1,871,837 3,863,108 1,228,695 1,720,510 808,640 2,965,282
2017 183,881 1,506,470 3,007,624 898,508 1,551,039 728,988 2,673,199
2018 183,881 1,019,305 1,986,682 622,097 1,784,517 838,723 3,075,597
2019 180,142 376,996 967,018 405,519 1,882,290 884,676 3,244,108
2020 0 11,860 147,338 82,018 1,688,459 793,576 2,910,043
2021 0 10,520 93,179 24,508 113,009 53,114 194,771
2022 0 0 0 0 128,207 60,257 220,963
Total 8,868,031 4,167,974 15,283,962
Table 128- Changes in Above ground tree carbon stock in the baseline

Changes in terrestrial below ground tree carbon pools in the baseline

The carbon stock changes in below ground biomass are calculated according to the methods
described in §4.1.3.2 and summarized in the table below.

Below ground tree carbon stock in the baseline (C BB_tree_bsl,i)

Below ground tree biomass in baseline Baseline carbon stock change in below
(CBB_tree_bsl,i) ground biomass
Year Dense Medium Sparse
Peat dome BGB CO2-C CO2-E (t)
swamp swamp swamp
forest (t) (t) (∆CBB_tree_bsl,i)
forest forest forest
Pre-
56,158 694,770 1,411,980 397,681
2016
2016 56,158 571,664 1,090,760 346,926 495,082 232,689 853,269
2017 56,158 460,080 849,211 253,696 446,362 209,790 769,300
2018 56,158 311,298 560,946 175,651 515,092 242,093 887,757
2019 55,016 115,136 273,040 114,500 546,361 256,790 941,648
2020 0 3,622 41,601 23,158 489,310 229,976 843,321
2021 0 3,213 26,309 6,920 31,939 15,012 55,047
2022 0 0 0 0 36,442 17,128 62,807
Total 2,560,589 1,203,477 4,413,149
Table 129- Changes in Below ground tree carbon stock in the baseline

Page 214 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Below ground tree carbon stock in the baseline (C BB_tree_bsl,i)

Baseline carbon stock change in below
Annual below ground biomass by depletion year ()
ground biomass
Year
AGB CO2-C CO2-E (t)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
(t) (t) (∆CBB_tree_bsl,i)
2016 49,508 49,508 23,269 85,327
2017 44,636 49,508 94,144 44,248 162,257
2018 51,509 44,636 49,508 145,654 68,457 251,033
2019 54,636 51,509 44,636 49,508 200,290 94,136 345,197
2020 48,931 54,636 51,509 44,636 49,508 249,221 117,134 429,529
2021 3,194 48,931 54,636 51,509 44,636 49,508 252,415 118,635 435,034
2022 3,644 3,194 48,931 54,636 51,509 44,636 49,508 256,059 120,348 441,315
2023 3,644 3,194 48,931 54,636 51,509 44,636 49,508 256,059 120,348 441,315
2024 3,644 3,194 48,931 54,636 51,509 44,636 49,508 256,059 120,348 441,315
2025 3,644 3,194 48,931 54,636 51,509 44,636 49,508 256,059 120,348 441,315
2026 3,644 3,194 48,931 54,636 51,509 44,636 206,551 97,079 355,988
2027 3,644 3,194 48,931 54,636 51,509 161,914 76,100 279,058
2028 3,644 3,194 48,931 54,636 110,405 51,890 190,282
2029 3,644 3,194 48,931 55,769 26,211 96,118
2030 3,644 3,194 6,838 3,214 11,785
2031 3,644 3,644 1,713 6,281
2032 -
2072
Total 256,059 256,059 256,059 256,059 256,059 256,059 256,059 256,059 256,059 256,059 2,560,589 1,203,477 4,413,149
Table 130- Below ground tree carbon stock in the baseline

Page 215 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from deforestation in the baseline

The Project has followed the requirements of VM0007 v1.6 § 5.4.2 and included N20 as a carbon
pool because of the potential for Nitrogen fertilizer application in the baseline scenario. However,
because no nitrogen fertilizer application occurs in the project scenario, it has been excluded from
the GHG emission reduction accounting as suggested in table 7, § 5.4.2 of VM0007 v1.6.

Baseline emissions from peat soils

Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains in the baseline

The RWE+REDD activity encompasses landscapes that have been drained by legacy canals and
which will rewetted by a program of canal blocking.

Under the baseline, the legacy canals will be replaced by a plantation drainage canals (in contrast
to blocking under the project scenario) resulting in continued peat soil GHG emissions from
peatland degradation and GHG emissions from drains.

The total of land planned for deforestation and conversion to plantations is 71,768.0 hectares.

Area drained (A peatsoil-BSL,i,t)

Legacy canals Plantation canals
Year
Total RWE+ RWE+ CIW+
Total RWE REDD Total REDD CIW REDD
2006 9,106.4 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2007 9,106.4 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2008 9,106.4 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2009 9,106.4 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2010 9,106.4 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2011 9,106.4 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2012 9,106.4 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2013 9,106.4 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2014 9,106.4 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2015 9,106.4 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2016 23,053.6 7,984.0 2,478.6 5,505.4 15,069.6 1,122.4 0.3 13,946.9
2017 35,942.8 6,638.6 2,478.6 4,160.0 29,304.3 2,467.9 1.6 26,834.8
2018 50,236.1 5,104.4 2,478.6 2,625.8 45,131.7 4,002.0 3.3 41,126.4
2019 65,384.1 4,150.0 2,478.6 1,671.4 61,234.1 4,956.4 3.3 56,274.4
2020 78,558.3 2,589.7 2,478.6 111.2 75,968.6 6,516.7 5.1 69,446.8
2021 79,670.2 2,478.6 2,478.6 0.0 77,191.6 6,627.8 5.1 70,558.7
2022 80,879.6 2,478.6 2,478.6 0.0 78,401.0 6,627.8 5.1 71,768.0
2023 80,879.6 2,478.6 2,478.6 0.0 78,401.0 6,627.8 5.1 71,768.0
2024 80,879.6 2,478.6 2,478.6 0.0 78,401.0 6,627.8 5.1 71,768.0
2025 - 2072 80,879.6 2,478.6 2,478.6 0.0 78,401.0 6,627.8 5.1 71,768.0
Table 131- Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains in the baseline

Page 216 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The surface area of the canals in the project area is as follows:

Surface area of drainage canals

Year Legacy canals Plantation canals
Total
Total RWE RWE+REDD Total RWE+REDD CIW CIW+REDD
2006 29.2 29.2 7.5 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
2007 29.2 29.2 7.5 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
2008 29.2 29.2 7.5 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
2009 29.2 29.2 7.5 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
2010 29.2 29.2 7.5 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
2011 29.2 29.2 7.5 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
2012 29.2 29.2 7.5 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
2013 29.2 29.2 7.5 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
2014 29.2 29.2 7.5 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
2015 29.2 29.2 7.5 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
2016 60.3 29.2 7.5 21.7 31.1 2.3 0.00 28.8
2017 86.1 25.5 7.5 18.0 60.6 5.1 0.00 55.5
2018 114.4 21.1 7.5 13.6 93.3 8.3 0.01 85.0
2019 142.7 16.1 7.5 8.6 126.6 10.2 0.01 116.3
2020 170.0 13.0 7.5 5.5 157.0 13.5 0.01 143.5
2021 167.4 7.9 7.5 0.4 159.5 13.7 0.01 145.8
2022 169.6 7.5 7.5 0.0 162.0 13.7 0.01 148.3
2023 169.6 7.5 7.5 0.0 162.0 13.7 0.01 148.3
2024 169.6 7.5 7.5 0.0 162.0 13.7 0.01 148.3
2025 - 2072 169.6 7.5 7.5 0.0 162.0 13.7 0.01 148.3
Table 132- Canal surface area statistics

Baseline emissions from peat soil

Baseline GHG emissions from peat soils

(GHproxy-BSL,i,t)
Total GHG CO2-C CH 4
Year (t CO 2-E) (t CO2-E) (t CO 2-E)
(GHGproxy-BSLi,t) (GHGproxy-CO2,i,t) (GHGproxy-CH4,i,t)
2006 668,553 667,865 688
2007 668,553 667,865 688
2008 668,553 667,865 688
2009 668,553 667,865 688
2010 668,553 667,865 688
2011 668,553 667,865 688
2012 668,553 667,865 688
2013 668,553 667,865 688
2014 668,553 667,865 688
2015 668,553 667,865 688
2016 1,692,493 1,690,750 1,743
2017 2,638,763 2,636,046 2,717
2018 3,688,113 3,684,316 3,798
2019 4,800,213 4,795,270 4,943
2020 5,767,407 5,761,468 5,939
2021 5,849,036 5,843,013 6,023
2022 5,937,823 5,931,708 6,114
2023 5,937,823 5,931,708 6,114
2024 5,937,823 5,931,708 6,114
2025 - 2072 5,937,823 5,931,708 6,114
Table 133- Baseline GHG emissions from peat soils

Page 217 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands

Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in
peatlands (GH peatditch-BSL,i,t)
Total GHG
DOC CH4
(t CO 2-E)
Year (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E)
(GHGpeatditch-
(GHGpeatditch-CO2,i,t) (GHGpeatditch-CH4,i,t)
BSLi,t )
2006 1,935 88 1,847
2007 1,935 88 1,847
2008 1,935 88 1,847
2009 1,935 88 1,847
2010 1,935 88 1,847
2011 1,935 88 1,847
2012 1,935 88 1,847
2013 1,935 88 1,847
2014 1,935 88 1,847
2015 1,935 88 1,847
2016 3,999 181 3,817
2017 5,705 259 5,446
2018 7,580 344 7,236
2019 9,453 429 9,024
2020 11,264 511 10,753
2021 11,093 503 10,590
2022 11,235 510 10,725
2023 11,235 510 10,725
2024 11,235 510 10,725
2025 - 2072 11,235 510 10,725
Table 134- Baseline GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands

Baseline Emissions from Peat Burning

Emissions from peat burning are excluded from the baseline assessment as there is no significant
history or threat of peat or biomass burning in the baseline period. VM0007 ver 1.6 at table 9 in
section 5.4.4 also indicates that “it is conservative to exclude”.

Significant Sources of Baseline Emissions

Most exclusions were implemented on the basis of conservatism which is permitted under VM0007.
The Project has included all mandatory carbon pools, and all other required sources of GHG
emissions have either been included or conservatively excluded.

Two sources of GHG emissions have been excluded for reasons of insignificance. These are the
burning of woody biomass and peat combustion. These emission sources are excluded because of
the complete absence of fire, or the drivers of fire which are occupation and deforestation, in the
project area over the period of the baseline measurement period from 2006 to 2020. Because of
the absence of fires, emissions from burning of woody biomass and peat combustion in the project
are assumed to be zero and are conservatively omitted. The relative contribution (RE%) from woody
biomass and peat combustion based on measured fires events is estimated as zero and less than
the 5% threshold of their respective pools as specified in T-SIG. Note that fire events will be
monitored and included in the project if they occur in the future.

Page 218 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Mineral soil carbon pool was excluded because this carbon pool does not exist within the project
boundary. Because mineral soil carbon is estimated to be zero, the relative contribution (RE%) is
estimated as zero and less than the 5% threshold of the total terrestrial carbon pool as specified in
T-SIG, and can be excluded.

All sources of GHG emissions have been included or conservatively excluded and mandatory pools
included. The net emissions from the baseline scenario between 17 June 2016 and 23 July 2072 is
347,584,166 t.CO2-e. This is the equivalent to average annual baseline emissions of 6,195,947 t
CO2-e yr-1.

Project Emissions

General Procedures and Assumptions

In the future, emissions from the Project Area (including any changes in those emissions) will be in
part determined from specific site data. When no specific site data is available, necessary
calculations can rely on IPCC default emissions factors, proxy analysis, and any national GHG
allometrics based on published scientific research data.

Project scenario emissions accounted for were based on:

1. Water bodies,
2. Above ground stock changes in biomass due to REDD, and
3. Microbial peat decompositions.
Planned Project Activities in relation to climate were:

1. Drained peatland rewetting,

2. Existing undrained peatland conservation,
3. Revegetation,
4. Deforestation and forest degradation avoidance, and
5. Fire control and prevention for nil burning.
Revegetation, fire control, and prevention in the Project are being operationally implemented.
However, it is noted that these activities are not included in emissions reduction estimates. This is
also conservative.

It is assumed that uncontrolled burning will not occur in the Project Area during the Project Period
since rewetting and fire prevention are conducted - therefore no GHG emissions are expected.
Notwithstanding this, any emissions resulting from fires that do occur will be accounted for (using
VMD0013 (E-BPB) ver. 1.2) under the established fire monitoring plan within the broader fire
management activities. The Project assumes that zero non-human induced rewetting will form part
of the Project Scenario.

Page 219 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

N2O emissions in the project are not accounted for because there will be no fertilizer applications.
Furthermore, rewetting of organic soils decreases N2O emissions rapidly and falls to virtually zero by
the raising of the water table depth, in the event this depth is below the surface by <20cm.CH4
emissions may be higher before stabilising to levels seen in undrained or never-drained areas
during the transient period immediately after rewetting activities. Emissions of CH 4 from rewetting
activities in the relevant strata sites commencing from the Project Start Date will be monitored
directly. Once sufficient data has been collected from those sites, emissions of CH 4 will be
assessed again and any variability accounted for in quantifications of GHG emissions based on
specific site data.

Project area

Emission Characteristics in Project Scenario

The Project Area under the Project Scenario has been stratified according to four classification
categories:

● Land cover - including Peat Dome Forest, Dense Swamp Forest. Medium Swamp Forest,
Sparse Swamp Forest, Non-Forest;
● Soil and soil depth – Peat by 50cm peat depth classes;
● Drainage status - including drained, undrained; and,
● Water body - Water body and land.
The Project Scenario Map (see Map 42) development process involved the following delineations as
at Project Start Date:

● Existing water bodies such as rivers and lakes,

● Forest and non-forest areas, with further stratification into land cover types,
● Drained areas in proximity to drainage canals and other undrained areas. It was assumed
that fully drained areas extend to 300m from the sides of canals. Based on this
assumption, the presence of drainage canals consistently results in the lowering of water
tables perpendicular to canals at differential levels, and

Page 220 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

● An overlay of the above delineations resulted in the Project Scenario Maps in relation to
each relevant activity as described below.

Map 42- Master project scenario map

Emission Characteristic Stratification for WRC Under Project Scenario

Emission Characteristic Stratification for REDD Under Project Scenario

During the Project Period, there is no deforestation or forest degradation anticipated under the
Project Scenario in any area where there is planned deforestation.

Uncontrolled burning is assumed to be zero after project initiation, given the fire prevention
programmes. There is no history of unplanned deforestation and forest degradation from illegal
land clearing and there is assumed to be no unplanned deforestation and forest degradation.

Carbon enhancement is likely to take place based on the Project Scenario as a result of forest
regrowth expected in all forested areas following Project commencement. Measurements of
biomass accumulation will be taken as part of periodic monitoring activities.

Emission Characteristic Stratification for ARR Under Project Scenario

The main ARR activities under the Project Scenario will be enrichment and reforestation planting
aimed at restoring the natural forest to a primary forest condition. All emissions reductions from
these activities are excluded from the project emissions calculation and ARR is not a GHG activity
under the Project.

Emission Characteristic Stratification for WRC Under Project Scenario

The locations of WRC activities under the Project Scenario are mapped by taking into account:

Page 221 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

(1) Initial land use, cover, and drainage status,

(2) Historical timing of land-use changes and drainage status based on planned rewetting under the
Project Scenario, and

(3) Peatland coverage:

a. Land cover – forest and non-forest

b. Location canals.
c. The timings of drainage canal blocking (rewetting) and the impacted canals and
surrounding drained areas.
Because the Project Area is entirely covered in deep peat, no specific consideration is required for
stratification by peat depth within the rewetted area.

Area Activity
Description of Strata
(ha) % class
Forested peatland, undrained and avoiding deforestation and
avoiding peatland degradation, from plantation development:
CIW+
Peatland with forest cover present at Project Start Date, no 71,768.1 55%
REDD
drainage impact from human-made legacy canals, planned for
forest clearing, drainage, and conversion to plantation.
Forested peatland, drained, avoiding deforestation from plantation
development, and peatland restoration by canal rewetting:
Peatland with forest cover present at Project Start Date and RWE+
6,627.8 5%
drainage impact from human-made legacy canals. This covers a REDD
300m belt alongside canals within the plantation development
zone. This area was planned for conversion to plantation.
Non-forested peatland and drained and peatland restoration by
canal rewetting + Forested peatland and drained and peatland
2,478.6 2% RWE
restoration by canal rewetting (but no avoided deforestation):
Peatland which will be rewetted but is ineligible under REDD.
Non-forested peatland, undrained and avoiding peatland
degradation, from plantation development: Peatland without forest
cover at Project Start Date due to prior logging and burning, with 5.1 0 CIW
drainage impact from human-made legacy canals. This covers a
300m belt alongside canals.
Not
Undrained peatland with no planned plantation development:
eligible
Peatland which has been planned for conservation and excluded 49,210.4 38%
for RWE
from plantation development under the baseline.
or REDD
130,0909
Total 100%
0.0
Table 135- Activity class of each stratum

Under the project, the PP plans to replant selected non-forest areas, restore deselected degraded
forest areas and block the legacy canals to rewet the drained landscape. The ARR activities are not
included in the project emissions estimates and are not described in detail here.
The strata that are distinguished in the Project Scenario based on this analysis are:

● Drained peatland,
● Undrained peatland.

Page 222 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The quantum of GHG emissions resulting from microbial peat decomposition and loss of DOC via
peatlands water bodies has been measured using an explicit temporal and spatial methodology.

Project Emissions Modelling Approach

Separate project emissions calculations have been prepared for 4 separate project activities:

1. RWE – Restoration of drained peatland with no avoiding planned deforestation.

2. RWE+REDD - Restoration of drained peatland with avoiding planned deforestation.
3. CIW – Avoiding wetland degradation with no avoiding planned deforestation.
4. CIW+REDD - Avoiding wetland degradation with avoiding planned deforestation.
All the areas developed into plantations under the baseline are protected under the respective
project activity. Existing legacy canals will be blocked over a period of 8 years under the project and
the drained areas rewetted.

For each stratum in the Project Scenario has been subdivided into the smallest parcel units of land
or water body and have relatively uniform spatial variables as shown in Table 136 Temporal
variability for Project emissions is accounted for by organising calculations into discrete timing 1-
year units. Table 136 outlines each of the following:

● Variables that determine strata change sequences,

● Temporal variability of parameters for GHG emissions, and
● Temporal restrictions to GHG emissions.
This schematization provides the assurance that GHG emission parameters at the correct spatial
location and the correct time have been appropriately used.

Variables Description
(A) Spatial Variables
(A1) Type of soil Distinction between peat and non-peat. This is used to exclude all non-peat
parcels from GHG calculation. All the Project Area is deep peat and there is no
non-peat.
(A2) Initial peat Derived from DEM and Peat Thickness Map. This is used as the initial
thickness available for condition for subsequent calculations of the remaining available peat for
microbial decomposition microbial decompositions
(A3) Initial stratum within Stratum of the corresponding parcel at project start date before conversion
the peat area into other (rewetted) stratum takes effect. All the Project Area is deep peat.
(B) Temporal Variables
(B1) Year of rewetting Employed to determine the onset of conversion from initial to rewetted
stratum, which sets all relevant parameters and variables related to drainage
accordingly. e.g. emission factors for the corresponding land parcels.
(B2) Remaining peat Employed for determining whether Project Scenario PDT has been reached for
thickness available for the corresponding land parcel in the corresponding year. The entire Project
microbial Area is deep peat with no stratum ever depleting to a thickness of 20cm and
decompositions and set to zero.
burnings
Table 136- Variables adopted for the systematic organisation of measurements for GHG emissions arising from
microbial peat decomposition and dissolving organic carbon from peatlands under the Project Scenario.

Page 223 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Emissions calculations for REDD

Total Project Emissions from REDD

For the project area of REDD project activities, the net GHG emissions in the project case is equal to
the sum of stock changes due to deforestation and forest degradation plus the total GHG emissions
minus any eligible forest carbon stock enhancement from VCS Module VMD0015 - M-PEAT equation
1:

Note under the project, it is assumed that all deforestation and forest degradation will be avoided
and that no net carbon stock changes will occur as a result natural disturbance. Therefore, the only
contributor to net GHG emissions from REDD will be reductions in emissions from forest carbon
stock enhancement. The net GHG emissions from REDD are calculated using this equation and
reported separately for CIW-REDD and RWE-REDD.

Project Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

During the Project Period:

1. There will be no deforestation anticipated under the project scenario and no associated
emissions,
2. There will be no forest degradation anticipated under the project scenario and no
associated emissions, and
3. There will be no emissions from uncontrolled biomass burning.

Page 224 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Because the project assumes no fire and no uncontrolled burning, then the estimation of GHG
emissions from biomass and peat burning as described in VCS Module VMD0013 – E-BPB do not
apply for this project.

Carbon Enhancement from Forest Growth

After Project Start Date, forested areas that would otherwise have been converted to plantations or
faced degradation are expected to benefit from regrowth and the associated biomass accumulation
and CO2 removal. Under VMD0015 M-REDD Version 2.2, changes to net ex-ante carbon stock
resulting from enhancement of forest carbon stock is multiplied by the areas where carbon stock is
accumulating and the difference in carbon stock (between baseline and project case). Project
equation 27 is from equation 25 of VMD0015 M-REDD.

The process for calculating forest growth in the avoided deforested areas is as follows:

1. The forests are classified by forest type:

a. Peat Dome Forest,
b. Dense Swamp Forest,
c. Medium Swamp Forest, and
d. Sparse Swamp Forest.
Each of these forest types has an average tree biomass estimate.

2. The forests are further classified into the year of baseline land clearing.
3. The above ground biomass growth rates of each forest type are based on the following IPCC
allometrics:
a. It is assumed that the remaining forest will accumulate biomass until an average
ABG of 348 t/ha is attained. This is estimated as the average AGB for naturally
regenerated tropical forests in Insular Asia 103.
b. For Dense and Medium Swamp Forest, 3.4 t ha -1 of biomass until an average
biomass of 348 t/ha is attained.

Page 225 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

c. For Sparse Swamp Forest, 13.0 t ha-1 of biomass for 20 years. After 20 years, 3.4 t
ha-1 of biomass until an average biomass of 348 t/ha is attained.
d. Peat Dome Forest is assumed to be unlogged primary forest and no net forest
increment.
The eligible area is determined from the area due to be deforested each year in the baseline.
Project equation 28 is from equation 26 of VMD0015 M-REDD:

The planned areas of deforestation for CIW+REDD activities are:

Eligible area for deforestation (A plannedEnh,PL,i,t )

Area of LUC by land cover types (ha)
Year Dense Medium Sparse Total area of
Peat
swamp swamp swamp planned
Dome
forest forest forest deforestation
2016 0% 19% 23% 12% 19%
2017 0% 16% 17% 25% 18%
2018 0% 22% 20% 19% 20%
2019 2% 26% 21% 18% 21%
2020 98% 17% 17% 20% 18%
2021 0% 0% 1% 4% 2%
2022 0% 0% 2% 2% 2%
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total Area
920.9 14,033.7 41,707.6 15,105.8 71,768.0
(Aplanned,i,t)
Table 137- Eligible area for deforestation for CIW+REDD activities

The source for these allometrics is the IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF 2003, table 3A.1.5
and 3A.1.2. Under this full restoration of ABG to primary forest levels will be attained within 58.1,
69.2, and 79.3 years respectively for the dense, medium, and sparse forest, respectively. Carbon
stock in the baseline stratum is equal to the C stock of forest at project initiation year. Carbon stock
enhancement will be monitored according to the VCS methodology VMD0015 module M-REDD and
will be reported at each monitoring event.

Project Emissions from Greenhouse Gases

The calculation of project GHG emissions using project equation 29, derived from equation 30 of
VMD0015 M-REDD:

Page 226 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

No GHG emissions are included in the project. Note:

• There is no expectation of deforestation or forest degradation.

• There is no expectation of planned or unplanned forest fires.
• Fossil fuel combustion is not included.
• The project does not include any land use that uses fertilizers.

Emissions calculations for RWE and CIW

Total Project Emissions from Peatlands

The Project has followed §5.1 of M-Peat to determine the net CO 2-equivalent emissions resulting
from microbial peat decompositions and water bodies for each land parcel within the Project Area
(taking into consideration the temporal and spatial variability). They were estimated using project
equation 30 which was obtained from equation 1 of VMD0046 M-PEAT, as shown below:

Page 227 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Note under the project, it is assumed that no fires will occur. The area of peat burnt and the GHG
emissions emitted from peat soil fires will be assumed to equal zero. Therefore, the only contributor
to net GHG emissions from RWE / CIW will be GHG emissions from:

• Microbial decomposition of peat soil

• Water bodies
The net GHG emissions from WRC are calculated using this equation and reported separately for
CIW-REDD and RWE-REDD.

Project Emissions from Peat Soil Degradation

The Project assessed GHG emissions from soil pursuant to §5.2 of M-Peat using Equation 2 of
VMD0046 M-PEAT:

Page 228 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Peat soil GHG emissions consist of CO 2 and CH4, calculated employing equation 3 of VMD0046 M-
PEAT as shown below:

Processes for quantifying carbon stock dynamics and peat losses are similar to those applied to the
baseline scenario (see §3.4). The only differences include 1) stratification, 2) strata sequence, and
3) the absence of burning in the Project Scenario that has been assumed.

Subsidence in relation to Peat Microbial Decomposition

For consistency between remaining peat carbon stock and yearly net CO 2-e emissions, yearly loss
rates for peat and carbon stock under the Project Scenario were calculated on an annual basis
applying the following:

● the rate of emissions stemming from peat microbial decompositions (CO 2 and CH4),
● bulk peat density above the water table, and
● a conservative carbon content value of 52.08 kg.kg-1 dry mass104.
Project equation 32 below was used for these calculations, it was acquired from equation 13 of
VMD0016 X-STR:

Page 229 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

A yearly assessment for the duration of the Project’s total lifetime was conducted for remaining peat
thickness, based on the peat loss rate resulting from peat microbial decomposition. Project
equation 33 below was used for these calculations, it was acquired from equation 9 of VMD0016 X-
STR:

Assurance was provided that there are no GHG emissions that have been accounted for in all
parcels of stratum by tracking yearly peat carbon stock and thickness in the baseline scenario, once
any available peat carbon stock has been depleted. On a conservative basis, it is assumed that
peat is depleted when peat thickness available for decomposition has been reduced to 20cm.

The below tables provide detail on the Project emission factors and stratification related to WRC:

Page 230 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

IPCC default IPCC default IPCC default IPCC default

emission factor for emission factor for emission factor for emission factor for
Description
CO2 CH4 N 2O DOC
(t.CO 2-C ha -1 yr-1) (kg.CH4 ha-1 yr-1) (kg.N 2O ha-1 yr-1) (t.CO 2-E ha-1 yr-1)
Undrained deforested
0 0 0 N/A
peatland
Drained deforested
20 2.7 1.2 N/A
peatland
Undrained peatland
0 0 0 N/A
forest
Drained peatland forest 20 2.7 5.3 N/A
Water bodies (rivers and
canals) on peatland
N/A N/A N/A 0.82
present at project start
date
Table 138- Stratification employed for calculation of GHG emissions, the area (ha), and the CO 2 and CH4 default
factors used in each stratum for the specific land use

Project GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands

The Project assesses GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies pursuant to §5.4 of
PL-PEAT. The emissions in the baseline are derived on the basis of ditched area and area of open
water combined with an emission factor as per project equation 34, obtained from equation 7 of
VMD0042 BL-PEAT:

The annual emissions of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and CH 4 from ditches and other open
water bodies are estimated using IPCC allometrics.

Land Use GHG Emission factor

Degradation CH4 2,259 kg CH4 ha-1 yr-1
Surface area of canals
Dissolved Organic Carbon DOC 0.82 tonnes C ha-1 yr-1
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines
for national greenhouse gas inventories: Wetlands. Methodological guidance on lands with wet and
drained soils and constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Gyldenkaerne, S. and Lin, E. (eds).
Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies [IGES].
Table 139- Emission factors of surface area of canals

Page 231 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

DOC is then converted to CO2E by multiplication using the CO 2 to molecular C conversion factor of
3.667105.

Emissions from Uncontrolled Peat Burning

Uncontrolled burning is assumed not to be present under the Project Scenario, since rewetting of
peatland and best-practice fire management (such as fire control and prevention, zero burning
policies, and others as determined by the relevant authorities) are implemented as Project
Activities.

Since Project Start Date, APRIL has incorporated the project area within their comprehensive fire
monitoring and fire-fighting program, they have implemented a comprehensive community-based
program to mitigate fire risks from adjacent communities. Should uncontrolled burning occur during
the Project lifetime, any area of fire scare and burn scar depth should be mapped within 3 months
of the fire event. Historical hotspot tracking and direct observation data will determine the
repetition of burning events in the Project Area, with maps generated of burning areas during the
Project lifetime. Deductions from emissions reductions will be undertaken for equivalent and
quantified GHG emissions from uncontrolled burning.

GHG emissions from peat burning will be calculated taking into account:

• dry mass loss on the basis of burn scar,

• burn depths,
• combustion factors,
• peat bulk density, and
• GHG potential of specific GHG species.
GHG emissions from the loss of biomass as a result of burning are quantified based on:

• type of land cover,

• combustion factors, and
• GHG potential of specific GHG species.
Scar depths for repeated burnings in the first, second and third (plus) instances of burning will be
assumed as 18, 11, and 4cm in depth.

Procedures for the quantifying of peat burning GHG emissions are undertaken in line with the VCS
methodology VM0007 and Module VMD0013 E-BPB.

Emissions reductions from peat combustion, using fire reduction premium

Uncontrolled burning is assumed not to be present under the Project Scenario (or the Baseline
Scenario for that matter), since rewetting of peatland and best-practice fire management (such as
fire control and prevention, zero burning policies, and others as determined by the relevant

Page 232 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

authorities) are implemented as Project Activities. The emissions from this source from peat
combustion are assumed to be zero.

Future approaches for calculating project emissions

A) Current projections for project emissions
At the commencement of the Project, GHG emission factors provided in Table 140 were used as a
conservative and scientifically robust approach (IPCC default emission factors), where adequate
site-specific and long-term measurements of emissions related to peat were not yet available for
estimating overall emissions. Procedures used are in accordance with the VCS methodology
VM0007 modules BL-PEAT and M-PEAT. Similar procedures are followed for GHG emissions
estimations for rewetted (WRE) or undrained or partially drained peat (CIW). GHG emissions
projections for microbial decompositions of peat are shown in Table 140 below.

GHG Emissions Estimates Legacy canal

Year CO 2-e CO2-C CH4 drained area
(t CO 2-e) (t CO 2-e) (t CO 2-e) (ha)
2016 270,853 270,574 279 8,015
2017 543,918 543,358 560 7,409
2018 346,354 345,997 357 4,718
2019 141,658 141,512 146 1,930
2020 59,428 59,367 61 809
2021 37,575 37,537 39 512
2022 37,575 37,537 39 512
2023 37,575 37,537 39 512
2024 0 0 0 0
2052 - 2072 0 0 0 0
Table 140- GHG emissions from microbial decompositions of peat in the project scenario in t.CO 2-e y-1.

B) Future approaches for calculating project emissions

For determining GHG and carbon fluxes resulting from microbial decomposition of peat under the
Project Scenario, different approaches will be used in the future. Within the Project lifetime, site-
specific measurement approaches (IPCC TIER 2 and TIER 3) will be conducted, and data collected
to minimise uncertainties in estimated emissions in relation to water table temporal and spatial
variations. This will enable the gathering of site-specific data sets for quantifying Project emissions
for all non-forest strata and strata with the most dynamic water table. For stratum that remains
unaffected by deforestation and drainage, the IPCC factors approach will be applied throughout the
Project lifetime since water table depths are less dynamic unless substantial changes in emission
characteristics are observed.

In the future, estimates of Project emissions will be calculated using two TIER 3 methods. As these
methods are complementary, they can be used effectively for minimising uncertainty and allow
cross-checking.

● Method 1: Monitoring soil subsidence - over the long-term, soil subsidence provides a
reliable proxy for estimation of peat soil carbon losses.

Page 233 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

● Method 2: Measuring direct CO 2 emissions (CH4 to follow) - data will be used to establish
empirical models specific to site and strata by combining proxies such as soil temperature,
soil moisture, and water table depth.
Water table depths and soil subsidence have been monitored in the Project Area since 2016 and
will continue through the Project lifetime over the next 60 years.

Project Emissions – RWE

Project emissions from peat soils

Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains in the baseline

The legacy canal blocking program and the resultant change in canal length, surface area, and
drained area under RWE activity are shown in the table below:

Length of Legacy Surface Area of Area Drained by

Year
Canals (km) Legacy Canals (ha) Legacy Canals (ha)
2014 37.6 7.5 2,478.6
2015 37.6 7.5 2,470.6
2016 36.5 7.3 2,202.7
2017 32.2 6.4 2,188.0
2018 31.4 6.3 1,313.9
2019 18.5 3.7 590.4
2020 7.0 1.4 312.6
2021 3.9 0.8 93.3
2022 1.3 0.3 93.3
2023 0.0 0.0 93.3
2024 0.0 0.0 0.0
2025 – 2072 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 141- Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains in the baseline

The RWE activity encompasses landscapes that have been drained by legacy canals and which will
be rewetted by a program of canal blocking. There is no planned deforestation under this activity
because the areas are either in non-forest or are forested without any planned deforestation.

Under the project, the canals will be blocked over an eight-year period resulting in complete
rewetting of the peat soils in the project area. The starting area of drained peatland in the RWE
activity is 2,478.6 hectares in 2016 and all canals are blocked by 2024.

Drained area estimates

(Apeatsoil-WPS,i,t)
Year

Area drained by legacy canals

2006 2,478.6
2007 2,470.6
2008 2,202.7
2009 2,188.0
2010 1,313.9
2011 590.4

Page 234 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

2012 312.6
2013 93.3
2014 93.3
2015 93.3
2016 0.0
Table 142- Drained area estimates of legacy canals

The surface area of the canals in RWE activity is as follows:

Surface area of drained canals

Year (ha)
(Aditch-BSL,i,t)
2014 7.5
2015 7.5
2016 7.3
2017 6.4
2018 6.3
2019 3.7
2020 1.4
2021 0.8
2022 0.3
2023 0.0
2024 0.0
2052 - 2072 0.0
Table 143- Canal surface area statistics

Project GHG emissions from Peat Soils

(GHpeatsoil-WPS,i,t)
Total GHG CO2-C CH4
Year (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E)
(GHGpeatsoil-WPS,i,t) (GHGproxy-CO2,i,t) (GHGproxy-CH4,i,t)
2006 181,966 181,779 187
2007 181,966 181,779 187
2008 181,966 181,779 187
2009 181,966 181,779 187
2010 181,966 181,779 187
2011 181,966 181,779 187
2012 181,966 181,779 187
2013 181,966 181,779 187
2014 181,966 181,779 187
2015 181,378 181,191 187
2016 161,710 161,544 167
2017 160,633 160,468 165
2018 96,457 96,358 99
2019 43,342 43,297 45
2020 22,948 22,924 24
2021 6,850 6,843 7
2022 6,850 6,843 7
2023 6,850 6,843 7
2024 0 0 0
2025 - 2072 0 0 0
Table 144- Project GHG emissions from Peat Soils

Page 235 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Project GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands
Project GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in
peatlands
(GHGpeatditch-WPS,i,t )
Total GHG DOC CH 4
Year (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E)
(GHGpeatditch-BSLi,t) (GHGpeatditch-CO2,i,t) (GHGpeatditch-CH4,i,t)
2006 498 23 475
2007 498 23 475
2008 498 23 475
2009 498 23 475
2010 498 23 475
2011 498 23 475
2012 498 23 475
2013 498 23 475
2014 498 23 475
2015 498 23 475
2016 484 22 462
2017 427 19 408
2018 416 19 397
2019 245 11 234
2020 93 4 89
2021 51 2 49
2022 17 1 17
2023 0 0 0
2024 0 0 0
2025 - 2072 0 0 0
Table 145- Project GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands

Project Emissions from Peat Burning

Emissions from peat burning are excluded from the project.

Project Emissions - RWE+REDD

Project Emissions from REDD
Area of land deforested in baseline
The planned areas of deforestation for RWE+REDD activities are:

Eligible area for deforestation (A plannedEnh,PL,i,t )

Area of LUC by land cover types (ha)

Year Peat Dense Medium Sparse Total area of
Dome swamp swamp swamp planned
forest forest forest forest deforestation
2016 0% 5% 23% 16% 17%
2017 0% 21% 26% 15% 20%
2018 0% 15% 26% 24% 23%
2019 0% 52% 13% 1% 14%
2020 100% 7% 12% 41% 24%
2021 0% 0% 0% 3% 2%
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total Area
(Aplanned,i,t) 1.8 1,102.2 2,664.7 2,859.1 6,627.8
Table 146- Eligible area for deforestation in the baseline

Page 236 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

This is the extent of the “avoiding deforestation” area.

Growth of Avoided Deforestation Areas
The carbon stock changes in above ground biomass are calculated according to the methods
described in §4.2.3.2 and summarized in the table below.

Growth of Avoided Deforestation Areas

Year Areas of avoided deforestation (ha) Growth of avoided deforested forests
Peat Dense Medium Sparse
Dome Swamp Swamp Swamp AGB (t) BGB (t) CO2E (t)
Forest Forest Forest Forest
2016 0.0 49.7 626.2 446.5 3,816 1,112 8,495
2017 0.0 279.2 1,308.2 880.5 8,391 2,438 18,663
2018 0.0 449.6 1,992.4 1,560.0 13,607 3,964 30,284
2019 0.0 1,024.2 2,332.5 1,599.7 16,852 4,883 37,460
2020 1.8 1,102.2 2,651.8 2,760.9 22,151 6,473 49,332
2021 1.8 1,102.2 2,664.7 2,859.1 22,529 6,587 50,180
2022 1.8 1,102.2 2,664.7 2,859.1 22,529 6,587 50,180
2023 1.8 1,102.2 2,664.7 2,859.1 22,529 6,587 50,180
2024 1.8 1,102.2 2,664.7 2,859.1 22,529 6,587 50,180
2025 - 2072 1.8 1,102.2 2,664.7 2,859.1 22,529 6,587 50,180
Table 147- Ex-ante net carbon stock changes as a result of forest carbon stock enhancement in the Project Area

Project emissions reductions from RWE+REDD

Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains

The legacy canal blocking program and the resultant change in canal length, surface area, and
drained area under RWE+REDD activity are shown in the table below:

Length of Legacy Surface Area of Legacy Area Drained by

Year
Canals (km) Canals (ha) Legacy Canals (ha)
2014 108.4 21.7 6,627.8
2015 106.7 21.3 6,532.0
2016 105.9 21.2 5,812.3
2017 94.4 18.9 5,220.7
2018 84.8 17.0 3,403.9
2019 54.6 10.9 1,339.2
2020 20.6 4.1 496.9
2021 7.2 1.4 418.5
2022 6.4 1.3 418.5
2023 6.4 1.3 418.5
2024 0.0 0.0 0.0
2052 - 2072 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 148- Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains

The RWE+REDD activity encompasses landscapes that have been drained by legacy canals and
which will be rewetted by a program of canal blocking.

Under the project, the canals will be blocked over an eight-year period resulting in complete
rewetting of the peat soils in the project area. The starting area of drained peatland in the RWE
activity is 6,627.8 hectares in 2016 and all canals are blocked by 2024.

Page 237 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Drained area estimates

(Apeatsoil-WPS,i,t)
Year
Area drained by legacy
canals
2006 6,627.8
2007 6,532.0
2008 5,812.3
2009 5,220.7
2010 3,403.9
2011 1,339.2
2012 496.9
2013 418.5
2014 418.5
2015 418.5
2016 0.0
Table 149- Drained area estimates of legacy canals

The surface area of the canals in RWE+REDD activity is as follows:

Surface area of drained

Year canals (ha)
(Aditch-BSL,i,t)
2014 21.7
2015 21.3
2016 21.2
2017 18.9
2018 17.0
2019 10.9
2020 4.1
2021 1.4
2022 1.3
2023 1.3
2024 0.0
2025 - 2072 0.0
Table 150- Canal surface area statistics

Project Emissions from Peat Soil

Project GHG emissions from peat soils

(GHpeatsoil-WPS,i,t )
Total GHG CO2-C CH4
Year (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E)
(GHGpeatsoil-WPS,i,t) (GHGproxy-CO2,i,t) (GHGproxy-CH4,i,t)
2006 486,587 486,086 501
2007 486,587 486,086 501
2008 486,587 486,086 501
2009 486,587 486,086 501
2010 486,587 486,086 501
2011 486,587 486,086 501
2012 486,587 486,086 501
2013 486,587 486,086 501
2014 486,587 486,086 501
2015 479,552 479,058 494

Page 238 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

2016 426,717 426,277 439

2017 383,284 382,890 395
2018 249,896 249,639 257
2019 98,316 98,215 101
2020 36,480 36,443 38
2021 30,726 30,694 32
2022 30,726 30,694 32
2023 30,726 30,694 32
2024 0 0 0
2025 - 2072 0 0 0
Table 151- Project GHG emissions from peat soils

Project GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands
Project GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in
peatlands
(GHGpeatditch-WPS,i,t )
Total GHG
DOC CH 4
(t CO 2-E)
Year (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E)
(GHGpeatditch-
(GHGpeatditch-CO2,i,t) (GHGpeatditch-CH4,i,t)
BSLi,t )
2006 1,437 65 1,372
2007 1,437 65 1,372
2008 1,437 65 1,372
2009 1,437 65 1,372
2010 1,437 65 1,372
2011 1,437 65 1,372
2012 1,437 65 1,372
2013 1,437 65 1,372
2014 1,437 65 1,372
2015 1,437 65 1,372
2016 1,591 72 1,518
2017 1,532 70 1,462
2018 1,450 66 1,384
2019 1,248 57 1,191
2020 1,255 57 1,198
2021 932 42 889
2022 908 41 866
2023 908 41 866
2024 908 41 866
2025 - 2072 908 41 866
Table 152- Project GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands

Project Emissions from Peat Burning

Emissions from peat burning are excluded from the baseline assessment.

Project Emissions – CIW

Project emissions from peat soils

Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains in the baseline

There are no legacy canals in CIW project activity area and all the landscape is fully wetted.

Page 239 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Project Emissions from Peat Soil

Because the landscape is fully wetted, there are no peat soil emissions in the CIW project activity
area.

Project GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands
Because there are no legacy canals in CIW project activity area, there are GHG emissions from
ditches in the CIW project activity area.

Project Emissions from Peat Burning

Emissions from peat burning are excluded from the project.

Project Emissions - CIW+REDD

Project emissions reductions from REDD

Area of land deforested in baseline

The planned areas of deforestation for CIW+REDD activities are:

Eligible area for deforestation (A plannedEnh,PL,i,t )

Area of LUC by land cover types (ha)
Year Dense Medium Sparse Total area of
Peat
swamp swamp swamp planned
Dome
forest forest forest deforestation
2016 0% 19% 23% 12% 19%
2017 0% 16% 17% 25% 18%
2018 0% 22% 20% 19% 20%
2019 2% 26% 21% 18% 21%
2020 98% 17% 17% 20% 18%
2021 0% 0% 1% 4% 2%
2022 0% 0% 2% 2% 2%
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total Area
920.9 14,033.7 41,707.6 15,105.8 71,768.0
(Aplanned,i,t)
Table 153- Eligible area for deforestation for CIW+REDD activities

Growth of Avoided Deforestation Areas

The carbon stock changes in above ground biomass are calculated according to the methods
described in §4.2.3.2 and summarized in the table below.

Growth of Avoided Deforestation Areas

Areas of avoided deforestation (ha) Growth of avoided deforested forests
Peat Dense Medium Sparse
Year
Dome Swamp Swamp Swamp AGB (t) BGB (t) CO2E (t)
Forest Forest Forest Forest
2016 2,632.2 9,468.4 1,846.3 13,946.9 47,420 13,534 105,052
2017 4,833.7 16,377.2 5,623.9 26,834.8 91,238 26,202 202,407

Page 240 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

2018 7,904.5 24,751.9 8,470.0 41,126.4 139,830 40,145 310,185

2019 11,603.5 33,459.4 11,192.8 56,274.4 191,269 54,902 424,274
13,954.
2020 40,413.2 14,157.9 69,446.8 232,988 67,851 518,493
8
13,963.
2021 40,880.8 14,793.2 70,558.7 236,769 68,968 526,934
7
2022 14,033.7 41,707.6 15,105.8 71,768.0 240,880 70,153 536,064
2023 14,033.7 41,707.6 15,105.8 71,768.0 240,880 70,153 536,064
2024 14,033.7 41,707.6 15,105.8 71,768.0 240,880 70,153 536,064
2025 - 2072 14,033.7 41,707.6 15,105.8 71,768.0 240,880 70,153 536,064
Table 154- Ex-ante net carbon stock changes as a result of forest carbon stock enhancement in the Project Area

Project emissions from peat soils

Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains in the baseline

There are no legacy canals in CIW+REDD project activity area and all the landscape is fully wetted.

Project Emissions from Peat Soil

Because the landscape is fully wetted, there are no peat soil emissions in the CIW+REDD project
activity area.

Project GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands
Because there are no legacy canals in CIW+REDD project activity area, there are GHG emissions
from ditches in the CIW+REDD project activity area.

Project Emissions from Peat Burning

Emissions from peat burning are excluded from the project.

Project Emissions – All Activities

Project Emissions from REDD

Area of land deforested in baseline

The planned areas of deforestation for the project area are:

Eligible area for deforestation (A plannedEnh,PL,i,t )

Area of LUC by land cover types (ha)

Year Peat Dense Medium Sparse Total area of
Dome swamp swamp swamp planned
forest forest forest forest deforestation
2016 0% 18% 23% 13% 19%
2017 0% 16% 17% 23% 18%
2018 0% 21% 20% 20% 20%
2019 2% 28% 20% 15% 21%
2020 98% 16% 16% 23% 19%
2021 0% 0% 1% 4% 2%
2022 0% 0% 2% 2% 2%
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total Area
(Aplanned,i,t) 922.6 15,135.95 44,372.35 17,964.95 78,395.89
Table 155- Eligible area for deforestation for REDD activities

Page 241 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

This is the extent of the “avoiding deforestation” area.

Growth of Avoided Deforestation Areas

The carbon stock changes in above ground biomass are calculated according to the methods
described in §4.2.3.2 and summarized in the table below.

Growth of Avoided Deforestation Areas

Year Areas of avoided deforestation (ha) Growth of avoided deforested forests
Peat Dense Medium Sparse
Dome Swamp Swamp Swamp AGB (t) BGB (t) CO2E (t)
Forest Forest Forest Forest
2016 0 2,682 10,095 2,293 88,304 25,243 113,547
2017 0 5,113 17,685 6,504 171,709 49,361 221,071
2018 0 8,354 26,744 10,030 264,447 76,022 340,469
2019 19 12,628 35,792 12,793 358,694 103,040 461,734
2020 923 15,057 43,065 16,919 439,729 128,095 567,825
2021 923 15,066 43,546 17,652 446,896 130,218 577,114
2022 923 15,136 44,372 17,965 453,983 132,261 586,244
2023 923 15,136 44,372 17,965 453,983 132,261 586,244
2024 923 15,136 44,372 17,965 453,983 132,261 586,244
2025 - 2072 923 15,136 44,372 17,965 453,983 132,261 586,244
Table 156- Ex-ante net carbon stock changes as a result of forest carbon stock enhancement in the Project Area

Project emissions reductions from RWE

Areas of drained land and surface areas of drains

Under the project, the canals will be blocked over an eight-year period resulting in complete
rewetting of the peat soils in the project area. The starting area of drained peatland in the project
area is 9,106.4 hectares in 2016 and all canals are blocked by 2024.

Area drained (A peatsoil-WPS,i,t)

Year Legacy canals
Total RWE RWE+REDD
2006 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8
2007 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8
2008 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8
2009 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8
2010 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8
2011 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8
2012 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8
2013 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8
2014 9,106.4 2,478.6 6,627.8
2015 9,002.6 2,470.6 6,532.0
2016 8,015.0 2,202.7 5,812.3
2017 7,408.7 2,188.0 5,220.7
2018 4,717.7 1,313.9 3,403.9
2019 1,929.5 590.4 1,339.2
2020 809.5 312.6 496.9
2021 511.8 93.3 418.5
2022 511.8 93.3 418.5
2023 511.8 93.3 418.5

Page 242 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

2024 0.0 0.0 0.0

2025 - 2072 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 157- Area drained by legacy canals

The surface area of the canals in RWE+REDD activity is as follows:

Surface area of drainage canals

Year Legacy canals
Total RWE RWE+REDD
2006 29.2 7.5 21.7
2007 29.2 7.5 21.7
2008 29.2 7.5 21.7
2009 29.2 7.5 21.7
2010 29.2 7.5 21.7
2011 29.2 7.5 21.7
2012 29.2 7.5 21.7
2013 29.2 7.5 21.7
2014 29.2 7.5 21.7
2015 28.9 7.5 21.3
2016 28.5 7.3 21.2
2017 25.3 6.4 18.9
2018 23.2 6.3 17.0
2019 14.6 3.7 10.9
2020 5.5 1.4 4.1
2021 2.2 0.8 1.4
2022 1.5 0.3 1.3
2023 1.3 0.0 1.3
2024 0.0 0.0 0.0
2025 - 2072 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 158- Canal surface area statistics

Project Emissions from Peat Soil

Project GHG emissions from peat soils
(GHpeatsoil-WPS,i,t )
Total GHG CO2-C CH 4
Year (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E)
(GHGpeatsoil-WPS,i,t) (GHGproxy-CO2,i,t) (GHGproxy-CH4,i,t)
2006 668,553 667,865 688
2007 668,553 667,865 688
2008 668,553 667,865 688
2009 668,553 667,865 688
2010 668,553 667,865 688
2011 668,553 667,865 688
2012 668,553 667,865 688
2013 668,553 667,865 688
2014 668,553 667,865 688
2015 660,930 660,249 681
2016 588,427 587,821 606
2017 543,918 543,358 560
2018 346,354 345,997 357
2019 141,658 141,512 146
2020 59,428 59,367 61
2021 37,575 37,537 39
2022 37,575 37,537 39

Page 243 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

2023 37,575 37,537 39

2024 0 0 0
2025 - 2072 0 0 0
Table 159- Project GHG emissions from peat soils

Project GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands
Project GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in
peatlands
(GHpeatditch-WPS,i,t)
Total GHG
DOC CH4
(t CO 2-E)
Year (t CO 2-E) (t CO 2-E)
(GHGpeatditch-
(GHGpeatditch-CO2,i,t) (GHGpeatditch-CH4,i,t)
BSLi,t )
2006 1,935 88 1,847
2007 1,935 88 1,847
2008 1,935 88 1,847
2009 1,935 88 1,847
2010 1,935 88 1,847
2011 1,935 88 1,847
2012 1,935 88 1,847
2013 1,935 88 1,847
2014 1,935 88 1,847
2015 1,912 87 1,825
2016 1,887 86 1,801
2017 1,678 76 1,602
2018 1,539 70 1,469
2019 968 44 924
2020 366 17 350
2021 147 7 140
2022 102 5 98
2023 85 4 81
2024 0 0 0
2025 - 2072 908 41 866
Table 160- Project GHG emissions from ditches and other open water bodies in peatlands

Project Emissions from Peat Burning

Emissions from peat burning are excluded from the baseline assessment; as a result, the total
Project Emissions from peat burning are “0.”

Page 244 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Leakage

Applicability of Leakage Modules

According to VM0007, leakage shall be considered for all project activities using the following
leakage modules, including:

• Planned deforestation / degradation: module LK-ASP

• Unplanned deforestation / degradation: module LK-ASU
• Fuelwood/charcoal collection: module LK-DFW
• Pre-project agricultural activities: module LK-ARR
• Ecological leakage: module LK-ECO
Module LK-ASU is not relevant because there is no avoided unplanned deforestation in the project.
Module LK-ME is not relevant because the project does not consider the impacts of reduction of
wood supply on local markets. Modules BL-DFW and LK-DFW are not relevant because there was no
pre-project history of unsustainable fuelwood collection.

The baseline activity is defined as (i) planned deforestation and (2) peatland drainage from
conversion to Acacia fibre plantations. The Project is therefore categorized as Avoiding Planned
Deforestation (APD) in combination with Conservation of Undrained and Partially drained Peatland
(CUPP) and Rewetting of Drained Peatland (RDP) activities.

Potential sources of leakage emissions include:

• The displacement of planned and unplanned deforestation activities;

• The displacement of pre-project agricultural activities on non-forest land, and;
• The displacement of fuelwood collection activities, and;
• Ecological leakage due to possible alterations of mean annual water table depth in adjacent
areas.
The applicability of the above-referenced leakage modules to the project activities is described in
Table 161 below:

Module Applicability
Estimation of emissions from activity shifting for Applicable. The Project may cause activity shifting
avoiding planned deforestation/ degradation (LK- of avoided planned deforestation.
ASP)
Estimation of emissions from activity shifting for Not Applicable. The Project is not categorized as
avoiding unplanned deforestation/ degradation: avoiding planned deforestation.
module LK-ASU
Estimation of emissions from the displacement of Not Applicable. The Project is not categorized as
fuelwood extraction (LK-DFW) avoiding fuelwood extraction.
Estimation of emissions from the displacement of Not Applicable. The Project is not categorized as
pre-project agricultural activities (LK-ARR) avoiding afforestation, revegetation, and
revegetation and is not categorized as pre-project
agricultural activities.

Page 245 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Estimation of emissions from ecological leakage Applicable. The Project is categorized as WRC and
(LK-ECO) may cause ecological leakage.
Table 161- Applicability of leakage modules

Where the Specific Deforestation Agent has been Identified

RER Estimation of Leakage Emissions from Activity Shifting for Avoiding Planned
Deforestation and Planned Degradation (LK-ASP)
As discussed previously, the most likely class of deforestation agent in the baseline has been
identified as specific industrial Acacia plantation operators.

Module LK-ASP is the applicable methodology for estimating the leakage emissions due to activity
shifting from forest lands that are legally authorized and documented to be converted to non-forest
land, including activity shifting to forested peatland that is drained as a consequence of project
implementation. Under these situations, displacement of baseline activities can be controlled and
measured directly by monitoring the baseline deforestation agents or class of agents. This tool must
be used for projects in areas where planned deforestation happens on forested peatlands,
regardless of the absence of peatland within the project boundaries.

Step 1 – Determination of the Baseline Rate of Forest Clearance by the Deforestation Agent

Option 1.1: Historical Deforestation Trend

§ 5.1.1 of Module LK-ASP provides three options for estimating the baseline rate of forest clearance
by the deforestation agent. We select Option 1.1 – Historical Deforestation Trend for this analysis.

Annual baseline deforestation is estimated by extrapolation the historical annual trend using linear
regression as per project equation 35, obtained from equation 2 of VMD0009 LK-ASP:

Data for this analysis was obtained from Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan (KLHK -
Ministry of Environment and Forestry of The Republic of Indonesia) describing forest plantation
concessions issued between 1995 and 2019.

Cumulative Cumulative
HTI concessions Licensed Area
Year SK number of HTI licensed
licensed (ha)
licensed area (ha)

Page 246 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

1995 2 2 18,845 18,845

1996 13 15 1,288,475 1,307,320
1997 21 36 459,980 1,767,300
1998 18 54 547,946 2,315,246
1999 2 56 52,830 2,368,076
2000 2 58 104,812 2,472,888
2001 4 62 85,729 2,558,618
2002 3 65 33,605 2,592,223
2003 9 74 124,734 2,716,957
2004 5 79 267,631 2,984,588
2005 3 82 44,659 3,029,247
2006 13 95 236,474 3,265,721
2007 25 120 693,320 3,959,040
2008 3 123 73,238 4,032,278
2009 38 161 1,449,173 5,481,451
2010 11 172 414,084 5,895,535
2011 17 189 585,938 6,481,473
2012 12 201 269,259 6,750,732
2013 14 215 963,231 7,713,964
2014 24 239 910,951 8,624,914
2015 5 244 203,057 8,827,972
2016 11 255 212,793 9,040,765
2017 12 267 527,017 9,567,782
2018 19 286 1,287,618 10,855,401
2019 12 298 432,975 11,288,375
Table 162- Official data on historic HTI concession licenses granted

Figure 26- Number of HTI 1995-2020

A regression analysis was conducted to estimate the historical trend in the cumulative area
licensed for conversion to HTI plantations between 2005 and 2015 (Figure 26). The following
project equation 36 was generated from the regression line of Figure 26.

𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝐻𝑇𝐼 = −123099541 + 619382.6919 ∗ 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 (36)

Where:

Page 247 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Area of HTI = Total license area of HTI plantation concessions

YEAR = The year of HTI issuance.

The ANOVA indicates that the regression model and the regression parameter estimates were
significant at a 95% confidence level.

Multiple R 0.992
R Square 0.984
Adjusted R Square 0.982
Standard Error 278,573
Observations 11
Table 163- Historical Trends Regression statistics

ANOVA
Source SS df MS F Significant Diff R2
Model 4.22E+13 1 4.22E+13 543.8 Yes 98.4%
Error 6.98E+11 9 7.76E+10
Total 4.29E+13 10
Table 164- Historical Trends Regression ANOVA

Standard Lower Upper Lower Upper

Coefficients Error t Stat P-value 95% 95% 95.0% 95.0%
Intercept -1239099541 53387430 -23.2096 2.43E-09 -1.4E+09 -1.1E+09 -1.4E+09 -1.1E+09
X Variable
1 619382.6919 26560.88 23.31936 2.33E-09 559297.8 679467.6 559297.8 679467.6
Table 165- Historical Trends Regression Parameter Estimates

Figure 27- Results of the regression analysis to test the significance of the historical trend in the cumulative area
licensed for conversion to HTI plantations between 2005 and 2015.

Page 248 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The regression analysis has been used to estimate the annual area licensed in Table 166. The total
projected area of HTI as of 2072 is projected to be 44,225,575 hectares. Applicable laws and
common practices suggest that 10% of the total licensed concession area would be reserved for
conservation while the remaining 90% would be converted. Then by applying the 7.97% baseline
deforestation rate as mandated by the LK-ASP, we produce the following deforestation estimates in
Table 166 below. We note that from 2031, the area of plantation development is limited to the area
remaining after 10% of the area is conserved. We have used KLHK land cover charts to estimate
the total plantation area as 1.6 million hectares as of 2015. The future areas are calculated by
summing the previous year’s planting to the current year's plantation conversion area. In 2072, the
estimated plantation area is calculated as 39,245,573 hectares.

Area deforestation and

Estimated HTI Increase in HTI Area
conversion to
Year area area Plantation
plantation (WOPR, t)
(ha)
2016 9,540,144 619,383 1,621,027 684,315
2017 10,159,527 619,383 2,305,342 728,743
2018 10,778,910 619,383 3,034,085 773,171
2019 11,398,292 619,383 3,807,256 817,600
2020 12,017,675 619,383 4,624,855 862,028
2021 12,637,058 619,383 5,486,883 906,456
2022 13,256,440 619,383 6,393,339 950,884
2023 13,875,823 619,383 7,344,224 995,313
2024 14,495,206 619,383 8,339,537 1,039,741
2025 15,114,588 619,383 9,379,278 1,084,169
2026 15,733,971 619,383 10,463,447 1,128,598
2027 16,353,354 619,383 11,592,045 1,173,026
2028 16,972,737 619,383 12,765,071 1,217,454
2029 17,592,119 619,383 13,982,525 1,261,883
2030 18,211,502 619,383 15,244,408 1,145,944
2031 18,830,885 619,383 16,390,352 557,444
2032 19,450,267 619,383 16,947,796 557,444
2033 20,069,650 619,383 17,505,241 557,444
2034 20,689,033 619,383 18,062,685 557,444
2035 21,308,415 619,383 18,620,129 557,444
2036 21,927,798 619,383 19,177,574 557,444
2037 22,547,181 619,383 19,735,018 557,444
2038 23,166,563 619,383 20,292,463 557,444
2039 23,785,946 619,383 20,849,907 557,444
2040 24,405,329 619,383 21,407,352 557,444
2041 25,024,712 619,383 21,964,796 557,444
2042 25,644,094 619,383 22,522,240 557,444
2043 26,263,477 619,383 23,079,685 557,444
2044 26,882,860 619,383 23,637,129 557,444
2045 27,502,242 619,383 24,194,574 557,444
2046 28,121,625 619,383 24,752,018 557,444
2047 28,741,008 619,383 25,309,462 557,444
2048 29,360,390 619,383 25,866,907 557,444
2049 29,979,773 619,383 26,424,351 557,444
2050 30,599,156 619,383 26,981,796 557,444

Page 249 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

2051 31,218,538 619,383 27,539,240 557,444

2052 31,837,921 619,383 28,096,685 557,444
2053 32,457,304 619,383 28,654,129 557,444
2054 33,076,687 619,383 29,211,573 557,444
2055 33,696,069 619,383 29,769,018 557,444
2056 34,315,452 619,383 30,326,462 557,444
2057 34,934,835 619,383 30,883,907 557,444
2058 35,554,217 619,383 31,441,351 557,444
2059 36,173,600 619,383 31,998,796 557,444
2060 36,792,983 619,383 32,556,240 557,444
2061 37,412,365 619,383 33,113,684 557,444
2062 38,031,748 619,383 33,671,129 557,444
2063 38,651,131 619,383 34,228,573 557,444
2064 39,270,513 619,383 34,786,018 557,444
2065 39,889,896 619,383 35,343,462 557,444
2066 40,509,279 619,383 35,900,907 557,444
2067 41,128,662 619,383 36,458,351 557,444
2068 41,748,044 619,383 37,015,795 557,444
2069 42,367,427 619,383 37,573,240 557,444
2070 42,986,810 619,383 38,130,684 557,444
2071 43,606,192 619,383 38,688,129 557,444
2072 44,225,575 619,383 39,245,573 557,444
Table 166- Deforestation Estimates

Step 2 – Estimate New Projection of Forest Clearance by the Baseline Agent of Deforestation
with Project Implementation if No Leakage is Occurring
The new area of annual deforestation by the baseline class of deforestation agents was calculated
by subtracting the annual area of clearance by the class of agents in the absence of the Project by
the total annual area of planned baseline deforestation as per project equation 37, derived from
equation 5 of VMD0009 LK-ASP:

New forest clearance

Unadjusted forest estimate
Year clearance estimate WoPR i,t NewRi,t
2015 639,886 624,808
2016 684,315 670,079
2017 728,743 712,902

Page 250 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

2018 773,171 757,068

2019 817,600 802,865
2020 862,028 860,805
2021 906,456 905,247
2022 950,884 950,884
2023 995,313 995,313
2024 1,039,741 1,039,741
2025 1,084,169 1,084,169
2026 1,128,598 1,128,598
2027 1,173,026 1,173,026
2028 1,217,454 1,217,454
2029 1,261,883 1,261,883
2030 1,145,944 1,145,944
2031 - 2072 557,444 557,444
Table 167- New area of annual deforestation by the baseline class of deforestation agents in which no leakage
occurs.

Step 3 – Monitor All Areas Deforested by Baseline Agent of Deforestation Through the Years
in Which Planned Deforestation was Forecast To Occur
For each monitoring period, we will estimate all areas deforested by the class of agents in the
country by monitoring the total area licensed for conversion to HTI concessions and the actual
deforestation. The KLHK is now publishing annual land cover maps showing concession
boundaries, natural forest, plantation, and non-plantation land uses, and data is available for 1990,
1996, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2019. Land cover maps will be
prepared annually from 2020. It is also anticipated that more historic annual land cover maps are
likely to become available in the future.

Actual leakage will be calculated using the following equation as per project equation 38, derived
from equation 6 of VMD0009 LK-ASP:

For this Project, we assume no leakage will occur. Monitoring will verify if leakage occurs in the
future.

Page 251 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Step 4 – Monitoring of GHG Emissions Outside the Project Boundary by Baseline Agent of
Deforestation
This can only be monitored and quantified when a specific deforestation agent is identified and is
not considered by this Project.

Peatlands and Tidal Wetlands

The project is located on peatlands and the planned deforestation baseline land use requires the
drainage of the peatland. Therefore, the GHG emissions from drainage and degradation of the
peatlands must be accounted for. The net GHG emissions due to wetland degradation from planned
deforestation displaced from the project area are estimated as per project equation 39, derived
from equation 10 of VMD0009 LK-ASP.

Note that this project only includes peatlands and does not include tidal wetlands.

Step 1 – Estimate Soil Organic Carbon Loss in All of Agent’s Concessions

PDT in the undrained peatland of alternative areas was used to determine the emission factors for
activity shifting leakage within peatlands. We estimate the cumulative carbon lost at t PDT as per
project equation 40, acquired from equation 11 of VMD0009 LK-ASP.

By using the land-use designation of the Indonesian Production Forest, the Project was able to
consider areas that could potentially generate peat emissions as a result of potential shifting

Page 252 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

leakage. Licensed plantation concessions (HTI) and other unlicensed Production Forest were
identified for this analysis using the KLHK land cover and soil map information.

At any point that there is deforestation in the peatlands, the Project assumed that there is
simultaneous drainage. To be conservative, the Project assumed that drained peatland is equal to
deforested peatland area. This assumption is made because as a general rule, industrial-level
conversion and deforestation on large areas of peatlands result in canal development that leads to
oxidation. By making this assumption, i.e. deforested areas were drained, the Project conservatively
ensured the inclusion of the most likely scenario that licensed HTI or unlicensed HP areas would
eventually be drained.

From the analysis:

• Approximately 1,369,621 ha (54%) of the licensed HTI in HP area was estimated to have
been deforested at the project start date.
• Approximately 914,479 ha (29.3%) of the unlicensed HP area was estimated to have been
deforested at the project start date.
We assumed conservatively that all peatlands in the unlicensed area are forested and undrained.
This assumption considered a higher AGB carbon stock in peatlands despite the actual vegetation
composition, hence a more conservative approach for accounting growth rate and emission factors.

Peatland + Non-
Peatland Non-Peatland
Peatland
Land cover type
Area Area Area
Area (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha)
(%) (%) (%)
HTI
Natural forest 1,125,346 45% 4,348,386 50% 5,473,732 49%
Plantation 734,302 29% 1,369,469 16% 2,103,770 19%
Non-forest 635,319 25% 2,993,059 34% 3,628,379 32%
Total HTI plantation 2,494,968 100% 8,710,914 100% 11,205,881 100%
Unlicensed HP areas
Natural forest 2,204,101 71% 37,254,172 84% 39,458,273 83%
Plantation 408,379 13% 2,118,498 5% 2,526,878 5%
Non-forest 506,050 16% 5,058,125 11% 5,564,175 12%
Total unlicensed HP areas 3,118,530 100% 44,430,795 100% 47,549,325 100%
Total HTI + Unlicensed HP areas
Natural forest 3,329,447 59% 41,602,558 78% 44,932,005 76%
Plantation 1,142,681 20% 3,487,967 7% 4,630,648 8%
Non-forest 1,141,369 20% 8,051,184 15% 9,192,554 16%
Total HTI + unlicensed HP
5,613,497 100% 53,141,709 100% 58,755,206 100%
areas
Table 168- Deforested and forested area in HTI and unlicensed HP areas right before the project start.

We summarized the total peatland area and carbon stock loss at tPDT in licensed HTI Acacia
plantations and unlicensed HP areas in the table below. The amount of carbon loss at tPDT was
based on peat thickness loss at tPDT and an average bulk density in Riau of 69.8 Kg C / m3:

Page 253 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Peat Depth Class HTI Unlicensed HP

Avg Avg Avg
peat Cpeatloss Cpeatloss
%
Range depth Area (t.C.ha- Total Peat Loss Area (t.C.ha- Total Peat Loss
(m) (m) (ha) 1 ) (t.C.yr )
-1 (ha) 1) (t.C.yr-1)
<1 0.75 1% 13,666 524 7,154,312 17,082 524 8,942,374
1-2 1.5 4% 93,262 1,047 97,645,564 116,571 1,047 122,049,907
2-3 2.5 10% 245,719 1,745 428,780,352 307,132 1,745 535,944,494
3-4 3.5 17% 418,613 2,443 1,022,672,085 523,236 2,443 1,278,266,298
4-5 4.5 13% 327,603 3,141 1,028,999,977 409,480 3,141 1,286,175,706
5-6 5.5 28% 701,941 3,839 2,694,750,913 877,375 3,839 3,368,244,155
6-7 6.5 25% 631,725 4,537 2,866,136,869 789,611 4,537 3,582,464,231
>7 7 3% 62,438 4,886 305,071,741 78,043 4,886 381,317,659
Total 100% 2,494,968 8,451,211,813 3,118,530 10,563,404,824
Carbon density for Riau peatlands = 69.8 Kg C m-3
Table 169- Summary of Peat Thickness and average carbon loss tPDT in all HTI and Unlicensed HP Concessions

The total soil organic carbon (t C) is estimated to be 8,451,211,813 and 10,563,404,824 for HTI
and Unlicensed HP. This equates to an average soil organic carbon loss (C t0-CPDT) of 3,387 t C ha-1.

This converts to cumulative peat loss at t PDT (Closs-PDT) of 12,420 t CO2e ha-1.

Step 2 – Estimate CO2 Emission Factor for Leakage to Peatland Per Hectare
We estimate the CO2 emissions factor from leakage to undrained peatlands at 12,420 t CO2e ha-1
as per project equation 41, acquired from equation 13 of VMD0009 LK-ASP.

In its analysis, the Project used the proportion of deforested area (54.8%) in the HP area licensed
for HTI concessions, to estimate the proportion of deforested and drained peatland before the
beginning of the Project start date.

RER assumed the projected undrained peatland that would be drained in the baseline in HP areas
licensed for HTI to be equal to the forested peatland without the area designated for conservation
(10% of the peatland). It was further estimated the projected undrained peatland that would be
drained in the unlicensed HP areas is equal to 61% of the peatland area.

HTI Unlicensed HP
Category
Area (ha) Area (%) Area (ha) Area (%)
Peatland 2,494,968 100% 3,118,530 100%
Deforested / drained peatland 1,369,621 55% 914,429 29%
Forested peatland 1,125,346 45% 2,204,101 71%
Conservation area 249,497 10% 311,853 10%
Projection of undrained peatland in the
875,850 35% 1,892,248 61%
baseline scenario

Page 254 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Table 170- Projection of undrained peatland in HP areas as alternative areas for leakage to peatland.

RER notes that the emission factor for leakage to peatlands is the average loss of carbon from peat
soils per ha in all of the class of agents’ concessions at PDT, expressed as tonnes of CO 2e.

The total amount of Cpeatloss,tPDT was factored by the percentage of drained peatland. It is estimated
as LKEF for licensed and unlicensed HP areas and is summarized below.

Parameters HTI plantations in HP Unlicensed HP area

Cpeatloss,tPDT(t C) 3,811,889,626 7,465,956,368
Total undrained area of peatlands in
875,850 1,892,248
alternative areas
LKEF (t.CO2-E ha-1) 15,958 14,467
Table 171- Estimated emission factors of leakage to peatland.

Step 3 – Estimate Net GHG Emissions Due to Leakage to Undrained Peatland as a Result of
Implementation of a Planned Deforestation Project
The Project was able to calculate the proportion of undrained peatlands in alternative areas based
on licensed HTI, unlicensed HP area, and undrained peatland areas. The results are set forth below.

HTI plantations in HP area Unlicensed HP area

Category
(ha)
Alternative area (HP area) 11,205,881 47,549,324.9
Undrained peatlands 875,850 11,408,775.87
PROPPEAT-AGENT 0.0782 0.2399
Table 172- The proportion of undrained peatland areas in the alternative area.

RER will calculate emissions due to leakage to undrained peatlands during project monitoring as
per project equation 42, obtained from equation 15 of VMD0009 LK-ASP.

Total Emissions from Activity Shifting for Avoiding Planned Deforestation

At each monitoring event, RER is able to calculate the total emissions from activity shifting leakage
for APD This calculation will be based on the parameters described in Steps above as per project
equation 43, obtained from equation 17 of VMD0009 LK-ASP.

Page 255 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

The RER Project assumes that no leakage will occur. There are leakage mitigation activities in place
for the RER Project and there will be monitoring and reporting of any leakage that occurs will during
the t crediting period. Any leakage will be reported at the verification events.

Estimation of Emissions from Ecological Leakage (LK-ECO)

VMD0044 Module LK-ECO requires that ecological leakage affecting the soil (peat) carbon pool
does not occur, by ensuring that the effect of hydrological connectivity with adjacent areas is
insignificant. This can be achieved by demonstrating an appropriate design (e.g. by establishing an
impermeable dam, by rewetting peatland that is surrounded by undrained peatland or by rivers), or
by a buffer zone within the project boundary.

The Project Area consists entirely of an intact peat swamp forest which requires relatively small but
significant intervention in terms of rewetting. As such, the risk of ecological leakage is by definition
limited to comparatively small areas along the legacy canals that existed at the commencement of
the Project.

Since the commencement of the Project in 2016, 126 km out of 146 km of the original legacy
canals have been successfully blocked and only 18.6 km of canals remain to be blocked within the
Project Area. The risk of ecological leakage is minimal as demonstrated by conditions in this area
and its surrounding peatlands at project start:

• In the Project Area where rewetting is being undertaken (9,148 ha), or about 7% of the total
Project Area, the canal blocking is taking place in a cascade design manner such that each
canal has a blockage, not at a single location, but at locations determined by the gradient
of the slope the canal. This stepwise approach to canal blocking will also result in limiting
water flow in the event of a breach or failure of any of the dams.

Page 256 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

• It should be noted that the size of the canals that are being blocked are as part of the
rewetting effort are not sizable. They are generally between 2-3 meters wide and about 1 to
1.5 meters deep. These relatively small dimensions also limit the amount of downstream
water discharge, which in turn severely limits the risk of ecological leakage. Even were a
dam to lose structural integrity and fail, the potential for ecological leakage remains
minimal as demonstrated by conditions in this area and its surrounding peatlands prior to
and at the Project Start Date.
• The conditions of the Project Area, that is, the geography and hydrological layout of the
Project Area and the additional peatlands that surround the area is such that flooding does,
in fact, occur regularly. However, the reason for the flooding is from substantial rainfall that
regularly occurs in the region and is not likely to be linked to the interventions of the WRC
Project activities.
• Lastly, none of the blocked canals are situated in a way that would allow discharge to leak
into the neighbouring landscape. All of the canals drain into natural waterways (the Serkap,
Sangar, and Turip Rivers) which in turn drains into the Kampar river that itself discharges
directly into the sea. These Rivers would easily be able to take on the additional water
discharged from a dam breach and would further act to mitigate any leakage.
No ecological leakage is anticipated to take place in the project scenario. Through the Project’s
ongoing monitoring activities, using subsidence poles, dipwells, and automatic level-loggers that
have been installed, and will continue to be installed near the blocked canals where they discharge
into a River or have some other type of main outlet. Monitoring will take place regularly, both during
the wet and dry seasons, and is outlined in more detail in Chapter 5. The automatic level-loggers
that will be installed in these areas will provide regular data on a daily basis. And if a dam loses
integrity, it will be promptly repaired, in-line with the requirements of § 6.3 of VMD0044 (LK-ECO).

Further, the quantity of water that could potentially be leaked beyond the boundaries of the
concession is limited and would not increase GHG emissions because:

a) Even where some or all dams rupture, the in situ natural waterways (i.e. rivers) and, to a
much lesser extent, man-made waterways have adequate capacity, would be easily able to
absorb the extra discharge, and would not lead to additional GHG emissions.
b) All of the land surrounding the project area is currently wetlands as well, and there are no
dryland areas that could be accidentally converted to wetlands (i.e. causing increased CH4
emissions).
c) Further, even if there was some leakage into the adjacent areas, not captured by the in-situ
waterways because all of the surrounding areas are already in wetland forest, there would
be no vegetive die-off as all of the surrounding areas already well adapted to the regular
seasonal natural flooding conditions.
d) There is no situation, in the event of the breach of a dam in the Project area that would
create a situation where an area outside of the Project boundary would suffer lowering of
the water table that would lead to increased N2O emissions.
In conclusion, the total emissions for the Project from Leakage is “0”.

Page 257 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Net GHG Emission Reductions and Removals

General
Net GHG emission reductions from REDD, ARR, and WRC prescribed in VM0007 REDD+ MF.

Note that the project does not include ARR activities and ARR emissions are not calculated.

Total Net GHG Emission Reductions for REDD Project Activity

The total net GHG reductions of the REDD project activity are calculated as per project equation 44,
obtained from equation 2 of VM0007 REDD+ MF.

Note that the RER Project assumes that no leakage will occur and net emissions from leakage are
assumed to be zero.

The net GHG emissions in the REDD baseline scenario (∆C BSL-REDD) are calculated as per project
equation 45, obtained from equation 3 of VM0007 REDD+ MF.

Note that the RER Project excludes emissions from unplanned deforestation and degradation from
fuelwood/charcoal production and net emissions from these are assumed to be zero.

The total net GHG reductions of the REDD project activity are presented in the table below.

Page 258 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

After exclusions and zero-rated emissions sources are accounted for, total net GHG reductions of
the REDD project activity (∆CBSL-REDD) are equivalent to the total net GHG emissions in the baseline
scenario from planned deforestation (∆CBSL-planned).

Net GHG emissions Net GHG emissions

Net GHG reductions Net GHG emissions
in the REDD due to leakage from
in the REDD project in the REDD project
baseline scenario the REDD project
Year activity (NERREDD) scenario (CWPS-REDD)
(CBSL-REDD) activity

(t CO2e) (t CO2e) (t CO2e) (CLK-REDD)

(t CO2e)
2016 1,707,777 1,646,493 -61,284 0
2017 3,056,527 2,835,456 -221,071 0
2018 3,667,098 3,326,630 -340,469 0
2019 4,051,040 3,589,305 -461,734 0
2020 3,907,397 3,339,572 -567,825 0
2021 1,206,919 629,805 -577,114 0
2022 1,248,522 662,278 -586,244 0
2023 1,027,559 441,315 -586,244 0
2024 1,027,559 441,315 -586,244 0
2025 1,027,559 441,315 -586,244 0
2026 942,232 355,988 -586,244 0
2027 865,302 279,058 -586,244 0
2028 776,526 190,282 -586,244 0
2029 682,361 96,118 -586,244 0
2030 598,029 11,785 -586,244 0
2031 592,525 6,281 -586,244 0
2032 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2033 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2034 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2035 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2036 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2037 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2038 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2039 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2040 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2041 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2042 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2043 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2044 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2045 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2046 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2047 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2048 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2049 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2050 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2051 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2052 586,244 0 -586,244 0

Page 259 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

2053 586,244 0 -586,244 0

2054 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2055 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2056 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2057 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2058 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2059 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2060 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2061 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2062 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2063 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2064 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2065 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2066 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2067 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2068 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2069 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2070 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2071 586,244 0 -586,244 0
2072 327,654 0 -327,654 0
Totals 50,162,342 18,292,996 -31,869,346 0
Table 173 – Total net GHG Emission Reductions from REDD Activity

Total Net GHG Emission Reductions for ARR Project Activity

GHG removals from ARR activities are not included in the RER project.

Total Net GHG Emission Reductions for WRC Project Activity

Net GHG emissions in the WRC project activity

The total net GHG emissions of the WRC project activity are calculated as per project equation 46,
obtained from equation 6 of VM0007 REDD+ MF.

Note that the RER Project assumes that no leakage will occur and net emissions from leakage
(GHGLK-WRC) are assumed to be zero.

Page 260 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Net GHG emissions in the WRC baseline scenario

For CIW-REDD, RWE-REDD, and CIW project activities in the baseline, net GHG emissions in the
WRC baseline scenario are calculated as per project equation 47, obtained from equation 7 of
VM0007 REDD+ MF.

Note that the RER Project is located entirely on peatland and there are no tidal wetlands within the
project area. It is assumed net emissions from tidal wetlands (GHG BSL-TW) are zero.

For CIW-REDD, RWE-REDD, and CIW project activities in the baseline, net GHG emissions in the
WRC baseline scenario on peatland are calculated as per project equation 48, obtained from
equation 8 of VM0007 REDD+ MF.

Note that the RER Project excludes emissions from unplanned peatland degradation and net
emissions from this GHGBLS-PEAT,unplanned is assumed to be zero.

For RWE project activities in the baseline, baseline fossil fuel is excluded from GHG emissions
estimation.

For RWE project activities in the baseline, net GHG emissions in the WRC baseline scenario on
peatland are calculated as per project equation 49, derived from equation 10 of VM0007 REDD+
MF.

Page 261 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Note that the RER Project is located entirely on peatland and there are no tidal wetlands within the
project area. It is assumed net emissions from tidal wetlands (GHG BSL-TW) are zero.

Note also that the RER Project excludes emissions from fossil fuel use (GHG BSL-FUEL) and these are
assumed to be zero.

After exclusions and zero-rated emissions sources are accounted for, total net GHG reductions of
the REDD project activity (∆CBSL-WRC) is equivalent to the total net GHG emissions in the baseline
scenario from on peatland (∆CBSL-PEAT), which in turn is equivalent to the total net GHG emissions in
the baseline scenario from planned deforestation (∆CBSL-planned).

Net GHG emissions in the WRC project scenario

The net GHG emissions in the WRC project scenario are calculated as per project equation 50,
derived from equation 11 of VM0007 REDD+ MF.

Note that the RER Project is located entirely on peatland and there are no tidal wetlands within the
project area. It is assumed net emissions from tidal wetlands (GHG WPS-TW) are zero.

Note also that the RER Project is located entirely on peatland and there are no tidal wetlands within
the project area. It is assumed net emissions from tidal wetlands (GHG WPS-TW) are zero.

Note that the RER Project assumes that no leakage will occur and net emissions from leakage are
assumed to be zero.

Page 262 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Total Net GHG Emission Reductions for WRC Project Activity

After exclusions and zero-rated emissions sources are accounted for, total net GHG emissions in the
WPS project scenario (GHGWPS-WRC) is equivalent to the total net GHG emissions in the WRC project
scenario on peatland (GHGWPS-PEAT).

Page 263 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Net GHG Net GHG Net GHG 2045 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0

Net GHG
emissions in emissions emissions due 2046 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
reductions in
the WRC in the WRC to leakage 2047 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
the WRC
Year baseline project from the WRC 2048 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
project activity
scenario (C BSL- scenario project activity 2049 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
(NERWRC)
WRC ) (CWPS-WRC) (CLK-WRC) 2050 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
(t CO2e)
(t CO2e) (t CO2e) (t CO2e) 2051 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2016 597,033 915,641 318,608 0 2052 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2017 2,098,872 2,644,468 545,596 0 2053 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2018 3,347,801 3,695,694 347,893 0 2054 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2019 4,667,040 4,809,666 142,626 0 2055 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2020 5,718,876 5,778,671 59,794 0 2056 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2021 5,822,407 5,860,129 37,722 0 2057 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2022 5,911,380 5,949,058 37,678 0 2058 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2023 5,911,397 5,949,058 37,660 0 2059 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2024 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0 2060 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2025 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0 2061 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2026 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0 2062 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2027 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0 2063 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2028 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0 2064 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2029 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0 2065 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2030 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0 2066 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2031 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0 2067 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2032 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0 2068 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2033 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0 2069 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2034 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0 2070 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2035 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0 2071 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2036 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0 2072 3,324,953 3,324,953 0 0
2037 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0 Total 322,954,522 324,482,098 1,527,576 0
2038 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0 Table 174 - Net GHG Emissions from WRC Activity
2039 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2040 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2041 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2042 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2043 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0
2044 5,949,058 5,949,058 0 0

Page 264 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Summary of GHG Emission Reductions and Removals

GHG Emission Reductions and Removals by Emissions Class

Net GHG emission reductions from REDD, ARR and WRC activities are calculated as per project
equation 51, acquired from equation 1 of VM0007 REDD+ MF.

The project does not include ARR activities and ARR emissions are estimated to be zero.

Total net GHG emission Total net GHG Total net GHG emission
reductions of REDD+ emission reductions of reductions of WRC project
Years project activities REDD project activities activities

(NERREDD+) (NERREDD) (NERWRC)

(t CO2e) (t CO2e) (t CO2e)
2016 2,304,810 1,707,777 597,033
2017 5,155,399 3,056,527 2,098,872
2018 7,014,900 3,667,098 3,347,801
2019 8,718,080 4,051,040 4,667,040
2020 9,626,273 3,907,397 5,718,876
2021 7,029,326 1,206,919 5,822,407
2022 7,159,902 1,248,522 5,911,380
2023 6,938,956 1,027,559 5,911,397
2024 6,976,616 1,027,559 5,949,058
2025 6,976,616 1,027,559 5,949,058
2026 6,891,289 942,232 5,949,058
2027 6,814,359 865,302 5,949,058
2028 6,725,584 776,526 5,949,058
2029 6,631,419 682,361 5,949,058
2030 6,547,087 598,029 5,949,058
2031 6,541,582 592,525 5,949,058
2032 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2033 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058

Page 265 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

2034 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058

2035 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2036 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2037 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2038 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2039 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2040 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2041 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2042 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2043 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2044 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2045 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2046 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2047 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2048 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2049 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2050 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2051 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2052 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2053 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2054 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2055 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2056 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2057 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2058 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2059 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2060 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2061 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2062 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2063 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2064 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2065 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2066 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2067 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2068 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2069 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2070 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2071 6,535,301 586,244 5,949,058
2072 3,652,607 327,654 3,324,953
Total 373,116,864 50,162,342 322,954,522
Table 175- GHG Emission Reductions and Removals by Emissions Class

Page 266 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

GHG Emission Reductions and Removals by Baseline and Project Case

Estimated
Estimated project Estimated net GHG
baseline Estimated leakage
emissions and emissions reductions
Years emissions and emissions
removals and removals
removals

(tCO2e) (tCO2e) (tCO2e) (tCO2e)

2016 2,562,134 257,324 0 2,304,810

2017 5,479,924 324,525 0 5,155,399

2018 7,022,323 7,424 0 7,014,900

2019 8,398,971 -319,109 0 8,718,080

2020 9,118,243 -508,030 0 9,626,273

2021 6,489,934 -539,392 0 7,029,326
2022 6,611,335 -548,566 0 7,159,902
2023 6,390,372 -548,584 0 6,938,956
2024 6,390,372 -586,244 0 6,976,616
2025 6,390,372 -586,244 0 6,976,616
2026 6,305,046 -586,244 0 6,891,289
2027 6,228,116 -586,244 0 6,814,359
2028 6,139,340 -586,244 0 6,725,584
2029 6,045,175 -586,244 0 6,631,419
2030 5,960,843 -586,244 0 6,547,087
2031 5,955,338 -586,244 0 6,541,582
2032 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2033 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2034 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2035 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2036 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2037 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2038 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2039 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2040 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2041 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2042 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2043 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2044 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2045 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2046 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2047 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301

Page 267 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

2048 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301

2049 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2050 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2051 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2052 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2053 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2054 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2055 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2056 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2057 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2058 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2059 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2060 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2061 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2062 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2063 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2064 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2065 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2066 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2067 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2068 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2069 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2070 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2071 5,949,058 -586,244 0 6,535,301
2072 3,324,953 -327,654 0 3,652,607
Total 342,775,094 -30,341,770 0 373,116,864
Table 176- Estimated net GHG emissions reductions (tCO2e)

Page 268 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Uncertainty Analysis
Per VMD0017 (X-UNC), uncertainties were calculated for the project’s REDD and WRC components
in both the Project and baseline scenarios.

Uncertainty in REDD baseline estimates

Step 1: Assess Uncertainty in Projection of Baseline Rate of Deforestation

It is here assumed that there is zero uncertainty in baseline rate of deforestation are based on
actual deforestation plans. Furthermore, there is assumed to be no unplanned deforestation in the
baseline. In this case:

The uncertainty in the baseline rate of deforestation as zero is supported since:

• An unquestionably conservative deforestation rate was used.

• An actual deforestation plan was prepared according to existing regulations and using
common practices as verified against proxy areas all located in the immediately adjacent to
the Project Area.
• Furthermore, as mentioned in § 4.4.1.1, the total uncertainty in the combined carbons
stocks and greenhouse gas sources in the REDD baseline was determined to be 8.6%.
Therefore, the cumulative uncertainty in the REDD baseline scenario is 8.6%. The Ex-Post
uncertainty in the REDD Project Scenario was set to zero, since no ex-post (re-)
measurements of carbon pools or GHG sources have been made. Uncertainties will be
reassessed when carbon pools are re-measured.

Step 2: Assess Uncertainty of Emissions and Removals in Project Area in Baseline

The parameters and modules used in this analysis are shown in the table below:

Parameters Modules Comment

CAB-tree CP-AB AGB has been directly measured in the AGB inventory.
Uncertainty calculations have been included for this parameter.
CBB-tree CP-AB BGB is estimated using proxy values from tier 2 allometrics for
natural forest in Indonesia. Uncertainty calculations have not
been included for this parameter.
CDW CP-D Deadwood carbon pool is not included in this project.
Uncertainty for this parameter is assumed to be zero and
calculations have not been included.
CLI CP-L Litter carbon pool is not included in this project. Uncertainty for
this parameter is assumed to be zero and calculations have not
been included.

Page 269 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

CSOC CP-S Soil organic carbon pool is included in the WRC uncertainty
calculations. Uncertainty for this parameter is assumed to be
zero and calculations have not been included.
CWP frp, CP-W The long-term wood products pool is not included in this project.
Uncertainty for this parameter is assumed to be zero and
calculations have not been included.
Ebiomassburn E-BPB Biomass burning is not included in this project. Uncertainty for
this parameter is assumed to be zero and calculations have not
been included.
EFC E-FFC Emissions from fossil fuel combustion are not included in this
project. Uncertainty for this parameter is assumed to be zero
and calculations have not been included.
N2Odirect-N E-NA Nitrate emissions are not included in the baseline. Nitrate
emissions from project activities are assumed to be zero.
Uncertainty for this parameter is assumed to be zero and
calculations have not been included.
Table 177 - Uncertainty Parameters and Modules

The uncertainty is calculated for AGB stratum using the following equation:

From the AGB inventory, the uncertainty is estimated as 8.65% as follows.

LC Class Area Avg BM Stdev No. plots t stat CI 95% Uncertainty

Dense swamp forest 19,287 150.3 43.7 50 2.010 12.4 8.3%
Medium swamp forest 63,328 112.7 31.3 92 1.986 6.5 5.7%
Sparse swamp forest 22,439 78.4 38.4 17 2.120 19.7 25.2%
Peat Dome Forest 23,748 199.3 55.9 10 2.262 40.0 20.1%
UREDD-BSL,SS,i 8.65%

Table 178- AGB Uncertainty Estimates

Page 270 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Step 3: Estimate Total Uncertainty in REDD Baseline Scenario

Rate uncertainty is incorporated as follows:

Given that the baseline rate uncertainty equals zero and the REDD uncertainty equals 8.65%, then
the total uncertainty equals 8.65%.

WRC Uncertainty

Using the standard error data for the peat emission factors provided by the IPCC (IPCC Wetlands
Supplement 2013) the uncertainties of CO 2 and CH4 emissions from microbial decompositions of
peat and Dissolved Organic Carbon from water bodies were calculated in both the baseline and
project scenarios. The uncertainty of GHG emissions from uncontrolled peat burning in the project
scenario was also set to zero as it was assumed all fires in the baseline and Project will be
prevented. Based on these assumptions the WRC uncertainty in the baseline and Project Scenarios
were calculated to be 0.82% and 2.93% respectively.

The total error in the REDD+ project activity was calculated as 0.87%. Considering the 15%
uncertainty threshold, no VCU deductions were made due to uncertainty. Further detail on all
calculations is provided in Annex 17.

Calculation of AFOLU Pooled Buffer Account Contribution

Pursuant to §8.4.5 of VM0007, the number of credits to be held in the AFOLU pooled buffer
account is determined as a percentage for the total carbon stock benefits. For REDD project
activities, this is equal to the net emissions in the baseline minus the net emissions from in the
project case. For WRC project activities, the proxy net change in carbon stocks applied in the REDD-
MF methodology is NERWRC

The Project has used the following equations number 13, 14 and 18 respectively from VM0007 to
estimate the buffer withholding:

Page 271 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Where:

BufferTotal Total permanence risk buffer withholding (t CO 2e)

BufferPlanned Buffer withholding for avoiding planned deforestation project activities (t

CO2e)

BufferWRC Buffer withholding for WRC activities (t CO 2e)

ΔCBSL,Planned Net GHG emissions in the baseline from planned deforestation (t CO 2e)

ΔCP Net GHG emission in the project area in the project scenario (t CO2e)

EFC,i,t Emission from fossil fuel combustion in stratum i in year t (t CO2e)

N2Odirect-N,i,t Direct N2O emission as a result of nitrogen application on the alternative

land use within the project boundary in stratum i in year t (t CO2e)

Any variable in the above equation that is not used by the Project is calculated a zero.

The Non-Permanence Risk Buffer Assessment Report (See Appendix 28) determined that the
combined non-permanence risk rating for the project is 10%. As set forth in VM0007, the annual
buffer withholding amounts are determined as a percentage of the total carbon stock benefit,
excluding leakage emissions. N 2O emissions, fossil fuel combustion emissions, and biomass
burning emissions were omitted from the calculations as the Project does not account for them.

Page 272 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

REDD net GHG WRC net GHG Non-Permanence 2048 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
emissions emissions risk buffer (10%) 2049 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
Years
reductions reductions (BufferTotal) 2050 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
(tCO2e) (tCO2e) (tCO 2e) 2051 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2016 1,707,777 597,033 230,481 2052 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2017 3,056,527 2,098,872 515,540 2053 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2018 3,667,098 3,347,801 701,490 2054 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2019 4,051,040 4,667,040 871,808 2055 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2020 3,907,397 5,718,876 962,627 2056 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2021 1,206,919 5,822,407 702,933 2057 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2022 1,248,522 5,911,380 715,990 2058 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2023 1,027,559 5,911,397 693,896 2059 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2024 1,027,559 5,949,058 697,662 2060 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2025 1,027,559 5,949,058 697,662 2061 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2026 942,232 5,949,058 689,129 2062 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2027 865,302 5,949,058 681,436 2063 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2028 776,526 5,949,058 672,558 2064 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2029 682,361 5,949,058 663,142 2065 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2030 598,029 5,949,058 654,709 2066 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2031 592,525 5,949,058 654,158 2067 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2032 586,244 5,949,058 653,530 2068 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2033 586,244 5,949,058 653,530 2069 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2034 586,244 5,949,058 653,530 2070 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2035 586,244 5,949,058 653,530 2071 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2036 586,244 5,949,058 653,530 2072 327,654 3,324,953 365,261
2037 586,244 5,949,058 653,530 Total 50,162,342 322,954,522 37,311,686
2038 586,244 5,949,058 653,530 Table 179 - Non-Permanence Risk Buffer Withholding
2039 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2040 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2041 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2042 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2043 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2044 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2045 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2046 586,244 5,949,058 653,530
2047 586,244 5,949,058 653,530

Page 273 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Calculation of Verified Carbon Units

The Verified Carbon Units (VCU) are calculated as per project equation 52, acquired from equation 19 of
VM0007 REDD+ MF.

The baseline and project scenarios are calculated on a calendar year starting from 1 January to 31
December. But the VCU’s are calculated from the project start date (17/6/2016) to the project end date (23
July 2072). Therefore, only a percentage of carbon emissions in the start and end year are eligible for VCUs.
The following adjustment factors have been calculated to estimate the percentage of emissions reductions
that are eligible as VCUs in the start and end year:

Period Date Start / end year eligibility factor

Start 17/06/2016 0.5397
End 23/07/2072 0.5589
Table 180- Net emissions adjustment factors at project start and end years

The methodology requires adjustment of estimated NER to account for uncertainty. As explained previously,
the project level uncertainty falls below the 15% uncertainty threshold, so no VCU deductions were made due
to uncertainty are due.

The annual estimated VCU’s originated by the Project are calculated by subtracting the VCS Non-Permanence
risk buffer withholding amounts from the uncertainty adjusted net emission reductions for each separate
Project Activity are set forth in Table 181 below.

Page 274 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Non-
Estimated VCUs Permanence Start/End
NERREDD+,t2 NERREDD+,t1
Years (VCUt) risk buffer date eligibility
(10%) factor
(t CO2e) (t CO2e) (t CO2e) (t CO2e)
2016 2,074,329 4,270,333 0 427,033 54%
2017 4,639,859 9,425,732 4,270,333 515,540 100%
2018 6,313,410 16,440,632 9,425,732 701,490 100%
2019 7,846,272 25,158,712 16,440,632 871,808 100%
2020 8,663,646 34,784,985 25,158,712 962,627 100%
2021 6,326,393 41,814,311 34,784,985 702,933 100%
2022 6,443,912 48,974,212 41,814,311 715,990 100%
2023 6,245,061 55,913,169 48,974,212 693,896 100%
2024 6,278,955 62,889,785 55,913,169 697,662 100%
2025 6,278,955 69,866,401 62,889,785 697,662 100%
2026 6,202,161 76,757,691 69,866,401 689,129 100%
2027 6,132,924 83,572,050 76,757,691 681,436 100%
2028 6,053,025 90,297,634 83,572,050 672,558 100%
2029 5,968,277 96,929,053 90,297,634 663,142 100%
2030 5,892,378 103,476,140 96,929,053 654,709 100%
2031 5,887,424 110,017,722 103,476,140 654,158 100%
2032 5,881,771 116,553,024 110,017,722 653,530 100%
2033 5,881,771 123,088,325 116,553,024 653,530 100%
2034 5,881,771 129,623,627 123,088,325 653,530 100%
2035 5,881,771 136,158,928 129,623,627 653,530 100%
2036 5,881,771 142,694,230 136,158,928 653,530 100%
2037 5,881,771 149,229,531 142,694,230 653,530 100%
2038 5,881,771 155,764,832 149,229,531 653,530 100%
2039 5,881,771 162,300,134 155,764,832 653,530 100%
2040 5,881,771 168,835,435 162,300,134 653,530 100%
2041 5,881,771 175,370,737 168,835,435 653,530 100%
2042 5,881,771 181,906,038 175,370,737 653,530 100%
2043 5,881,771 188,441,340 181,906,038 653,530 100%
2044 5,881,771 194,976,641 188,441,340 653,530 100%
2045 5,881,771 201,511,943 194,976,641 653,530 100%
2046 5,881,771 208,047,244 201,511,943 653,530 100%
2047 5,881,771 214,582,546 208,047,244 653,530 100%
2048 5,881,771 221,117,847 214,582,546 653,530 100%
2049 5,881,771 227,653,149 221,117,847 653,530 100%
2050 5,881,771 234,188,450 227,653,149 653,530 100%
2051 5,881,771 240,723,751 234,188,450 653,530 100%
2052 5,881,771 247,259,053 240,723,751 653,530 100%
2053 5,881,771 253,794,354 247,259,053 653,530 100%
2054 5,881,771 260,329,656 253,794,354 653,530 100%
2055 5,881,771 266,864,957 260,329,656 653,530 100%
2056 5,881,771 273,400,259 266,864,957 653,530 100%
2057 5,881,771 279,935,560 273,400,259 653,530 100%
2058 5,881,771 286,470,862 279,935,560 653,530 100%
2059 5,881,771 293,006,163 286,470,862 653,530 100%
2060 5,881,771 299,541,465 293,006,163 653,530 100%
2061 5,881,771 306,076,766 299,541,465 653,530 100%
2062 5,881,771 312,612,067 306,076,766 653,530 100%
2063 5,881,771 319,147,369 312,612,067 653,530 100%
2064 5,881,771 325,682,670 319,147,369 653,530 100%

Page 275 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

2065 5,881,771 332,217,972 325,682,670 653,530 100%

2066 5,881,771 338,753,273 332,217,972 653,530 100%
2067 5,881,771 345,288,575 338,753,273 653,530 100%
2068 5,881,771 351,823,876 345,288,575 653,530 100%
2069 5,881,771 358,359,178 351,823,876 653,530 100%
2070 5,881,771 364,894,479 358,359,178 653,530 100%
2071 5,881,771 371,429,781 364,894,479 653,530 100%
2072 1,837,311 211,246,238 207,593,631 365,261 56%
Total 334,355,143 10,901,490,888 10,526,408,501 37,508,239
Table 181 - Annual VCUs, NERs and Buffer Credits with Totals

Page 276 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

5 MONITORING
Data and Parameters Available at Validation
Data / Parameter ΔCBSL,planned
Data unit t CO2e
Description Net greenhouse gas emissions in the baseline from planned
deforestation
Source of data Module BL-PL
Value applied 51,877,310 (CAB_tree + CBG_tree)
Justification of choice of Derived and justified in §4.1 of the PD in which the baseline is set
data or description of and calculated as required by BL-PL.
measurement methods
and procedures applied
(Justification)
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline emissions
Comments Parameter is from REDD-MF

Data / Parameter GHGBSL-WRC

Data unit t CO2e
Description Net greenhouse gas emissions in the WRC baseline scenario up to
year t*
Source of data Module BL-PL
Value applied 327,887,054
Justification See Module BL-PL.
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline emissions
Comments Parameter is from REDD-MF

Data / Parameter Project Forest Cover Monitoring Map

Data unit Dimensionless
Description Map showing the location of forest land within the project area at
the beginning of each monitoring period. If within the Project Area
some forest land is cleared, the benchmark map must show the
deforested areas at each monitoring event
Source of data Remote sensing in combination with GPS data collected during
ground truthing
Value applied 0
Justification The minimum map accuracy must be 90% for the classification of
forest/non-forest in the remote sensing imagery.
If the classification accuracy is less than 90% then the map is not
acceptable for further analysis. More remote sensing data and
ground truthing data will be needed to produce a product that
reaches the 90% minimum mapping accuracy.
Frequency: Must be monitored at least every 5 years or if
verification occurs on a frequency of less than every 5 years
examination must occur prior to any verification event
Purpose of Data Calculation of forest cover
Comments Where forest land contains more than one forest class, the map
must be stratified into forest classes using module X-STR.
Parameter is from M-REDD

Page 277 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Data / Parameter CF
Data unit t C t d.m.-1
Description Carbon fraction of dry matter in t C t-1 d.m.
Source of data Values from the literature (e.g. IPCC 2006 INV GLs AFOLU Chapter 4
Table 4.3) shall be used if available, otherwise default value of 0.47 t
C t-1 d.m. can be used
Value applied 0.47
Justification Globally accepted default value derived from IPCC 2006GL
Purpose of Data Calculation of carbon stock
Comments Parameter is found in modules M-REDD and CB-AB

Data / Parameter CFj

Data unit t C t d.m.-1
Description Carbon fraction of biomass for tree species j
Source of data Values from the literature (e.g. IPCC 2006 INV GLs AFOLU Chapter 4
Table 4.3) shall be used if available, otherwise default value of 0.47 t
C t-1 d.m. can be used
Value applied 0.47 or species specific value.
Justification IPCC 2006GL
Purpose of Data Calculation of carbon stock
Comments Where new species are encountered in the course of monitoring, new
carbon fraction values must be sourced from the literature or
otherwise use the default value.
Parameter is from M-REDD

Data / Parameter Dj
Data unit t d.m. m -3
Description Density of wood by species from World Wood Database
Source of data See wood density allometrics attached
Value applied The species density assumptions are recorded in the appendices.
Justification Derived from World Wood Database. See also Module CP-AB
Purpose of Data Calculation of wood density
Comments Parameter is from M-REDD

Data / Parameter DMN

Data unit t d.m. m -3
Description Mean wood density of commercially harvested species.
Source of data See wood density allometrics attached
Value applied The species density assumptions are recorded in the appendices.
Justification Derived from World Wood Database. See also Module CP-AB
Purpose of Data Calculation of wood density of commercially harvested species.
Comments Parameter is from M-REDD

Data / Parameter fj(X,Y)

Data unit t d.m. tree-1
Description Allometric equation for species j linking measured tree variable(s) to
aboveground biomass of living trees, expressed as t d.m. tree-1
Source of data Chave, J., C. Andalo, S. Brown, M. A. Cairns, J. Q. Chambers, D.
Eamus, H. Folster, F. Fromard, N. Higuchi, T. Kira, J.-P. Lescure, B. W.
Nelson, H. Ogawa, H. Puig, B. Riera, T. Yamakura. 2005. Tree
allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in
tropical forests. Oecologia 145: 87-99.

The formula is:

AGB = 0.0776*(WOOD DENSITY)*(DBH)*(DBH)*(Estimated
Height)^0.94

Page 278 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Diameter at breast height (DBH) and Estimated Height are

generated from forest inventory. Wood density uses the World Wood
Database
Value applied Module CP-AB – see also the reference
Justification Derived from Chave, J., C. Andalo, S. Brown, M. A. Cairns, J. Q.
Chambers, D. Eamus, H. Folster, F. Fromard, N. Higuchi, T. Kira, J.-P.
Lescure, B. W. Nelson, H. Ogawa, H. Puig, B. Riera, T. Yamakura.
2005. Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and
balance in tropical forests. Oecologia 145: 87-99.
Purpose of Data Calculation of aboveground biomass
Comments It is necessary to validate the applicability of equations used. Source
data from which equation was derived should be reviewed and
confirmed to be representative of the forest type/species and
conditions in the project and covering the range of potential
independent variable values.
Parameter is found in modules M-REDD and CB-AB

Data / Parameter Aplanned,i

Data unit ha
Description Total area of planned deforestation over the fixed baseline period
for stratum i
Source of data GPS coordinates and/or Remote Sensing data and/or legal parcel
records
Value applied See table 90 of the RER-CP VCS-PD ver11
Justification Derived and justified in §4.1 of the PD in which the baseline is set
and calculated as required by BL-PL.
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline planned deforestation
Comments Parameter from module M-REDD

Data / Parameter CBSL,i,t100

Data unit t C ha-1
Description Peat carbon stock in the baseline scenario in peat depth stratum i
at t=100
Source of data Module X-STR
Value applied 413,465,913.14
Justification Derived and justified in §4.1 of the PD in which the project
emissions are described.
Purpose of Data Calculation of peat carbon stock
Comments Parameter from module M-REDD

Data / Parameter CAB_tree,peatdome

Data unit t CO2e ha-1
Description Mean aboveground tree biomass carbon stock of trees in peat
dome forest.
Source of data Module CP-AB
Value applied 343.47
Justification Derived from and justified in §3.3 of the PD.
Purpose of Data Calculation of carbon stock
Comments Parameter from module M-REDD

Data / Parameter CAB_tree,dense swamp forest

Data unit t CO2e ha-1
Description Mean aboveground tree biomass carbon stock of trees in dense
swamp forest
Source of data Module CP-AB
Value applied 258.96

Page 279 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Justification Derived from and justified in §3.3 of the PD.

Purpose of Data Calculation of carbon stock
Comments Parameter from module M-REDD

Data / Parameter CAB_tree,medium swamp forest

Data unit t CO2e ha-1
Description Mean aboveground tree biomass carbon stock of trees in medium
swamp forest
Source of data Module CP-AB
Value applied 194.22
Justification Derived from and justified in §3.3 of the PD.
Purpose of Data Calculation of carbon stock
Comments Parameter from module M-REDD and BL-PL

Data / Parameter CAB_tree,sparse swamp forest

Data unit t CO2e ha-1
Description Mean aboveground tree biomass carbon stock of trees in sparse
swamp forest
Source of data Module CP-AB
Value applied 135.07
Justification Derived from and justified in §3.3 of the PD.
Purpose of Data Calculation of carbon stock
Comments Parameter from module M-REDD and BL-PL

Data / Parameter D%planned,i,t

Data unit % year-1
Description Projected annual proportion of land that will be deforested in stratum
i at year t
Source of data Module BL-PL
Value applied 8.61%
Justification This is the rate estimated from the baseline plantation development
plan. It is almost identical to deforestation rate from analysis of
Remote Sensing data and/or legal records for a number of proxy
areas (8.46%). It justified in §4.1 of the PD in which the baseline is
set and calculated as required by BL-PL.
Purpose of Data Calculation of projected deforestation
Comments Must be revisited at the time of baseline revision
Parameter from module M-REDD and BL-PL

Data / Parameter N2Odirect-N,i,t

Data unit t CO2e
Description Direct N2O emission as a result of nitrogen application on the
alternative land use within the project boundary in stratum i in year
t
Source of data Module E-NA
Value applied N/A
Justification Justified in § 4.2 of the PD. See also Module E-NA
Purpose of Data Calculation of N 2O emissions on the alternative land use
Comments Parameter from module M-REDD

Page 280 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Data / R
Parameter
Data unit t root d.m. t -1 shoot d.m.
Description Root to shoot ratio appropriate to species or forest type / biome; note that as defined
here, root to shoot ratio is applied as belowground biomass per unit area:above ground
biomass per unit area (not on a per stem basis)
Source of
data Emissions factors for calculation of biomass for non-tree pools in natural forest and scrub

AGBDBH< 5cm AGBunderstorey BGB (root) Litter Woody debris

Forest type AGBDBH≥5cm

Ratio to (2) Ratio to (2+3) Ratio to (2+3+4) Ratio to (2+3) Ratio to (2+3)

-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7

Dense swamp forest 16.83% 3.30% 30.54% 2.22% 25.91%

From carbon 15.00% 4.94% 28.24% 3.01% 31.02%
Medium swamp forest
stock estimate
Sparse swamp forest report 15.00% 4.94% 28.24% 3.01% 31.02%
Peat dome forest 16.83% 3.30% 30.54% 2.22% 25.91%
Source: Krisnawati et al. (2015). Standard Methods for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Forests and Peatlands in
Indonesia (Version 2). Table 2-3. Indonesian National Carbon Accounting System.

Value applied 30.54% peat dome and dense swamp forest

28.24 for medium and sparse swamp forest
Justification Derived from Table 2-3 of the Indonesian National Carbon Accounting System,
Krisnasati, et al. 2015. Standard methods for estimating greenhouse gas emissions
from forests and peatlands in Indonesia (version2). See also Module CP-AB
Purpose of Calculation of carbon stock
Data
Comments See Module CP-AB
Parameter is found in modules M-REDD and CB-AB

Data / Parameter ABSL,i,t or Ai,t

Data unit ha
Description Area of baseline stratum i in year t
Source of data Own assessment
Value applied See table 50 of the RER_CP VCS-PD ver 11
Justification Delineation of strata is preferably done using a Geographical
Information System (GIS), which allows for integrating data from
different sources (including GPS coordinates and remote sensing
data).
Applied techniques must follow international standards of
application or local standards as laid out in pertinent scientific
literature or handbooks.
The area of peat burnt (Apeatburn-WPS,i,t for the project scenario
from Module M-PEAT and Apeatburn-BSL,i,t for the baseline
scenario from Module BL-PEAT) and area of peatland (not open
water, not burnt) (Apeatsoil-WPS,i,t for the project scenario from
Module M-PEAT and Apeatsoil-BSL,i,t for the baseline scenario from
Module BL-PEAT) determine the difference between the remaining
carbon stock in the project scenario and baseline scenarios after
100 years. In the procedures in Section 5.4 these areas are
together referred to as AWPS,i,t and ABSL,i,t.
Purpose of Data Calculation of peat carbon stock
Comments Parameter from module X-STR

Page 281 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Data / Parameter Depthpeat-BSL,i,t0

Data unit m
Description Average peat depth in the baseline scenario and the project scenario
in stratum i at project start
Source of data Existing peat depth maps and/or field assessment and/or in
combination with remote sensing data.
Value applied See table 46
Justification Procedures for monitoring peat depth are given in Module M-PEAT
and in this module.
Peat depths can be derived from
• Existing peat depth maps
• Literature datasets involving the project or similar areas.
• Field measurements, e.g., using a peat corer
Remote sensing to derive height of the peat surface above datum.
For the purpose of determining the PDT, where relevant, peat depth
may be determined as the depth of the peat layer down to a level
where no further oxidation or other losses occur (e.g., the average
water table depth).
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline emissions
Comments In the absence of peer-reviewed data sources, the project proponent
must justify that the data used are representative and that standard
methods have been used.
Parameter from module X-STR

Data / Parameter Depthpeat-WPS,i,t0

Data unit m
Description Average peat depth in the baseline scenario and the project
scenario in stratum i at project start
Source of data Existing peat depth maps and/or field assessment and/or in
combination with remote sensing data.
Value applied See table 46 of the RER-CP VCS-PD ver10
Justification Procedures for monitoring peat depth are given in Module M-PEAT
and in this module.
Peat depths can be derived from
• Existing peat depth maps
• Literature datasets involving the project or similar areas.
• Field measurements, e.g., using a peat corer
Remote sensing to derive height of the peat surface above datum.
For the purpose of determining the PDT, where relevant, peat depth
may be determined as the depth of the peat layer down to a level
where no further oxidation or other losses occur (e.g., the average
water table depth).
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline emissions
Comments In the absence of peer-reviewed data sources, the project
proponent must justify that the data used are representative and
that standard methods have been used.
Parameter from module X-STR

Data / Parameter Subinitial-BSL,i

Data unit m yr-1
Description Subsidence in the initial years after drainage in stratum i
Source of data Default factor from scientific literature or field assessments in
peatland areas in the same region that underwent equal land use
development as projected for the baseline scenario.
Value applied 0.04
Justification Deemed 0 for RDP projects.
Procedures for measuring soil subsidence are described in Module
M-PEAT

Page 282 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline GHG emissions

Comments Parameter from module X-STR

Data / Parameter Ratepeatloss-BSL,i,t; Ratepeatloss-BSL,i

Data unit m yr-1
Description Rate of peat loss due to subsidence and fire in the baseline
scenario in stratum i in year t; a conservative (low) value may be
applied that remains constant over time; Subsidence in the initial
years after drainage is not included in this rate;
Rate of peat loss due to subsidence and fire in the baseline
scenario in stratum i; a conservative (high) value must be applied
that remains constant over the time from t = 0 to PDT
Source of data Default factor from scientific literature or field assessments in
peatland areas that are similar to the project area (proxy area)
Value applied 0
Justification See VMD0016 X-STR Section 5.4. Subsidence in the initial years
after drainage is not included in this rate. Also there is no fire
modelled in the baseline and the losses are estimated as 0.
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline emissions
Comments Parameter from module X-STR

Data / Parameter Cvol_lower,BSL,I,t ; Cvol_lower,WPS,i,t

Data unit kg C m-3
Description Volumetric carbon content of the peat below the water table in the
project scenario in stratum i in year t
Source of data Module M-PEAT
Value applied 52 kg C m-3 based on bulk density (0.093 g cm-3), carbon content
56% (Anshari et al., 2010; Page et al., 2011; Hooijer et al., 2012).
Justification Anshari et al., 2010, Drainage and land use impacts on changes in
selected peat properties and peat degradation in West Kalimantan
Province, Indonesia, Biogeosciences, 7, 3403-3419; Page et al.,
2011. Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland
carbon pool, Global change Biology. 17:2, 798-818; Hooijer et al.,
2012. Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatlands.
Biogeosciences 9, 1053-1071. See also Module M-PEAT
Purpose of Data Calculation of project emissions
Comments See Module M-PEAT
Parameter from module X-STR

Data / Parameter GHGpeatsoil,CO2,i,t

Data unit t CO2e yr-1
Description CO2 emissions from microbial decomposition of the peat soil in
stratum i in year t
Source of data Module BL-PEAT
Value applied 323,866,833
Justification Justified in §4.1 of the PD. See also module BL-PEAT
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline emissions
Comments Parameter from module X-STR

Data / Parameter VC
Data unit kg C m-3
Description Volumetric organic carbon content
Source of data Direct measurements and/or literature involving the project area or
similar areas
Value applied 52 kg C m-3 based on bulk density (0.093 g cm-3), carbon content
56% (Anshari et al., 2010; Page et al., 2011; Hooijer et al., 2012).

Page 283 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Justification Anshari et al., 2010, Drainage and land use impacts on changes in
selected peat properties and peat degradation in West Kalimantan
Province, Indonesia, Biogeosciences, 7, 3403-3419; Page et al.,
2011. Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland
carbon pool, Global change Biology. 17:2, 798-818; Hooijer et al.,
2012. Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatlands.
Biogeosciences 9, 1053-1071. See also Module M-PEAT & Module
E-NA. Justified in § 4.1 of the PD.
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline emissions
Calculation of the maximum quantity of GHG emission reductions
that may be claimed by the project
Comments Parameter from module X-STR

Data / Parameter EREDD_BSL,SS,I,Pool#

Data unit t CO2e
Description Carbon stock or GHG sources (eg, trees, down dead wood, soil
organic carbon, emission from fertilizer addition, emission from
biomass burning etc.) in the REDD baseline scenario
Source of data The terms denoting significant carbon stocks, GHG sources or
leakage emissions used in calculating net emission reductions from
the following relevant modules: CP-AB, E-NA.
Value applied 540.6
Justification See relevant modules noted above in Source of Data.
Purpose of Data Calculation of uncertainty
Comments The ex-ante estimation must be derived directly from the
estimations originating in the relevant modules: CP-AB, E-NA.
Parameter from module X-UNC

Data / Parameter UREDD_BSL,SS,i,pool#

Data unit %
Description Percentage uncertainty (expressed as 95% confidence interval as a
percentage of the mean where appropriate) for carbon stocks and
greenhouse gas sources in the REDD baseline scenario (1, 2…n
represent different carbon pools and/or GHG sources)
Source of data Calculations arising from field measurement data
Value applied 0.09
Justification Uncertainty in pools derived from field measurement with 95%
confidence interval calculated as the standard error of the averaged
plot measurements in each stratum multiplied by the t value for the
95% confidence level.
For wood products the uncertainty should be the confidence interval
around the volume of timber extracted from the forest.
For emission sources conservative parameters should be used
sufficient to allow the uncertainty to be set as zero.
Purpose of Data Calculation of uncertainty
Comments Baseline stocks and sources are estimated ex ante for each
baseline period
Parameter from module X-UNC

Data / Parameter U*,i,t

Data unit t CO2e ha-1 yr-1
Description Uncertainty in parameter * in stratum i in year t
* = parameters Eproxy-CO2,t, Eproxy-CH4,t, Epeatditch-CO2,t,
Epeatditch-CH4,t and Epeatburn-BSL,
Source of data Module X-UNC
Value applied 0.09

Page 284 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Justification Where regression models are used to estimate emissions from

oxidation of peat from proxy parameters, uncertainty is calculated
by referencing the 95% confidence limits of the regression model,
calculated using standard regression analysis techniques. For the
value of the referenced proxy in year t, the half-width of the 95%
confidence interval for the dependent variable (emissions) is
calculated to produce parameters U*t.
Where emissions are estimated applying a discrete default factor,
uncertainty, U*t, is simply calculated by referencing the 95%
confidence limit of the default factor estimate, or assigned as zero
if an indisputably conservative factor is used.
Purpose of Data Calculation of uncertainty
Comments Parameter from module X-UNC

Data / Parameter D%pn

Data unit %
Description Percent of deforestation in land parcel pn etc of a proxy area as a
result of planned deforestation as defined in this module
Source of data Module X-UNC & Module BL-PL
Value applied 42.26%
Justification Justified in §4.1 of the PD. See also Module BL-PL
Purpose of Data Calculation of uncertainty
Comments Parameter from module X-UNC

Data / Parameter Yrspn

Data unit years
Description Number of years over which deforestation occurred in land parcel
pn in proxy area
Source of data Module BL-PL
Value applied N/A
Justification Justified in §4.1 of the PD. See also Module BL-PL
Purpose of Data Calculation of uncertainty
Comments Parameter from module X-UNC

Data / Parameter Cvol_upper,i,t and Cvol_lower,i,t

Data unit g C cm-3
Description Average volumetric carbon content of the peat above and below the
water table in stratum i at year t
Source of data Own measurements
Value applied 0.05
Justification Justified in §4.2 of the PD. Estimated conservatively from literature
or determined from field sampling using standard laboratory
techniques
Purpose of Data Calculation of project emissions.
Comments M-PEAT Section 5.6.5 - if subsidence is chosen as proxy
Parameter from module M-PEAT

Data / Parameter Dpeatburn,i,t

Data unit m yr-1
Description The peat fire depth, or fire scar depth per year
Source of data Data sources or own measurements
Value applied 0
Justification Field measurements or remote sensing, expert judgment, literature
(e.g., Ballhorn et al. 2009; Couwenberg et al. 2010; Van der Werf et
al. 2010; IPCC) and/or datasets of historic burn depths involving the
project or similar areas
Purpose of Data Calculation of project emissions.
Comments See M-PEAT Section 5.6.8

Page 285 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Parameter from module M-PEAT

Data / Parameter CC
Data unit %
Description Carbon concentration of the peat
Source of data Anshari et al., 2010; Page et al., 2011; Hooijer et al., 2012
Value applied Default factor (if employed): 0.56
Justification Sampling using national default factors
Purpose of Data Calculation of project emissions
Comments See M-PEAT Section 5.6.5 - if subsidence is chosen as proxy
Parameter from module M-PEAT

Data / Parameter Ap
Data unit ha
Description Total area of peat in the project area (in case of rewetting projects)
or proxy area (in case of conservation projects)
Source of data Module X-STR
Value applied 130,090.00
Justification Justified in §4.2 of the PD. See also Module X-STR
Purpose of Data Calculation of project emissions
Comments Parameter from module M-PEAT

Data / Parameter Apeatburn-BSL,i,t

Data unit ha
Description Area of peat burnt in stratum i in year t in the project scenario
Source of data Module X-STR
Value applied N/A
Justification Justified in §4.1 of the PD. See also Module X-STR.
Also the area of peat burnt can be assessed using field
observations and/or remote sensing using best-practice methods
(see e.g., Congalton 1991; Congalton et al., 2008). Remote sensing-
based data on burnt peat areas must be validated by field
observations or other, higher resolution remote sensing data.
When using remote sensing, data must be georeferenced into a
common geodetic system, for example using the UTM system using
best-practice methods in remote sensing (see e.g., Congalton 1991;
Congalton et al., 2008). Semi-automated image classification
approaches may be applied. Strata must be validated by reference
data collected in the field, other official documentation or from
recent independent higher resolution remote sensing imagery.
See Module X-STR for procedures to delineate all peat strata
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline emissions
Comments Parameter from module M-PEAT & BL-PEAT

Data / Parameter GHGpeatsoil,BSL,i,t

Data unit t CO2e y-1
Description CO2 emissions from microbial decomposition of the peat soil within
the project boundary in the baseline scenario in stratum i in year t
Source of data Module BL-PEAT
Value applied 323,866,833
Justification See Module BL-PEAT
Purpose of data Calculation of baseline emissions
Comments Parameter from module M-PEAT

Page 286 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Data / Parameter L-Di

Data unit %
Description Likelihood of deforestation in stratum i
Source of data Module BL-PL
Value applied 1
Justification For all areas not both under Government control and zoned for
deforestation, L-Di must be equal to 1
For areas under Government control and zoned for deforestation L-Di
must be calculated as the summed proxy areas in the appropriate
stratum divided by the areas within these proxy areas that has been
deforested within the previous five years.
Purpose of Data Calculation of projected deforestation
Comments Alternatively, BCEF, where not directly available, can be calculated
as wood density (t dry mass m-3 green volume) * BEF (Biomass
Expansion Factor = ratio of aboveground biomass to biomass of the
commercial volume).
If using BCEFs developed outside the project country (cases (c) and
(d) above under Source of data), it is necessary to validate the
applicability of BCEFs used.
Parameter is found in BL-PL

Data / Parameter GHGBSL-PEAT

Data unit t CO2e
Description Net GHG emissions in the WRC baseline scenario up to year t*
Source of data Module BL-PEAT
Value applied 327,887,054
Justification Derived and justified in §4.1 of the PD in which the baseline is set
and calculated as required by BL-PEAT
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline emissions

Comments Parameter is found in module BL-PL A

Data / Parameter GHGpeatburn-BSL,i,t

Data unit t CO2e ha-1 y-1
Description GHG emissions from burning of peat in the baseline scenario in
stratum i at year t
Source of data (IPCC) default factors, literature values or direct measurements
Value applied N/A
Justification Justified in §4.1 of the PD. Procedures for assessing GHG emissions
from burning of biomass and peat are provided in Module E-BPB.
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline emissions
Comments Parameter is found in module BL-PEAT

Data / Parameter GHGproxy-CO2,i,t

Data unit t CO2e ha-1 y-1
Description Emission of CO2 in relation to the chosen proxy in stratum i at year t
Source of data (IPCC) default factors, literature values or direct measurements

IPCC (2013) Supplement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national

greenhouse gas inventories: Wetlands. Methodological guidance on
lands with wet and drained soils and constructed wetlands for
wastewater treatment. Gyldenkaerne, S. and Lin, E. (eds). Japan:
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies [IGES].
Value applied 73.34
Justification Justified in §4.1 of the PD. See also Module M-PEAT
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline emissions

Page 287 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Comments Proxies must comply with VCS requirements on proxies. It must be

demonstrated that the proxy used is strongly correlated with CO2
emissions by referring to IPCC, literature or own data. When
referring to own data, comparison with literature values must be
made.
Parameter is found in module BL-PEAT

Data / Parameter GHGproxy-CH4,i,t

Data unit t CH4 ha-1 y-1
Description Emission of CH4 in relation to the chosen proxy in stratum i at year t
Source of data IPCC (2013) Supplement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national
greenhouse gas inventories: Wetlands. Methodological guidance on
lands with wet and drained soils and constructed wetlands for
wastewater treatment. Gyldenkaerne, S. and Lin, E. (eds). Japan:
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies [IGES].
Value applied 0.0756
Justification Justified in §4.1 of the PD. See also Module M-PEAT
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline emissions
Comments Proxies must comply with VCS requirements on proxies. It must be
demonstrated that the proxy used is strongly correlated with CO2
emissions by referring to IPCC, literature or own data. When
referring to own data, comparison with literature values must be
made.
Parameter is found in module BL-PEAT

Data / Parameter GHGpeatditch-CO2,i,t

Data unit t CO2e ha-1 y-1
Description Emission of CO2 from ditch and open water stratum i at year t
Source of data Project-specific values; appropriate literature sources
Value applied 3.01
Justification Justified in §4.1 of the PD. See also Module M-PEAT
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline emissions
Comments Parameter is found in module BL-PEAT

Data / Parameter GHGpeatditch-CH4,i,t

Data unit t CO2e ha-1 y-1
Description Emission of CH4 from ditch and open water stratum i at year t
Source of data Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. 2013
Supplement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse
gas inventories: Wetlands. Methodological guidance on lands with
wet and drained soils and constructed wetlands for wastewater
treatment. Gyldenkaerne, S. and Lin, E. (eds). Japan: Institute for
Global Environmental Strategies [IGES].
Value applied 63.25
Justification Justified in §4.1 of the PD. See also Module M-PEAT and IPCC
2013GL.
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline emissions
Comments Parameter is found in module BL-PEAT

Data / Parameter Apeatsoil-BSL,i,t

Data unit ha
Description Area of peatland (not open water, not burnt) in stratum i in year t in
the project scenario
Source of data Module X-STR
Value applied 130,090.00
Justification Justified in §4.1 of the PD. See also Module X-STR
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline emissions
Comments Parameter is found in module BL-PEAT

Page 288 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Data / Parameter Aditch-BSL,i,t

Data unit ha
Description Total area of ditch and other open water stratum i in year t in the
baseline scenario
Source of data Module X-STR
Value applied 158.54
Justification Justified in §4.1 of the PD. See also Module X-STR
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline emissions
Comments Parameter is found in module BL-PEAT

Data / Parameter tPDT-BSL,i

Data unit yr
Description Peat depletion time (PDT) in the baseline scenario in stratum i in
years elapsed since the project start
Source of data Module X-STR
Value applied >100 years
Justification Justified in §4.1 of the PD. See also Module X-STR
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline emissions
Comments Parameter is found in module BL-PEAT and in LK-ASP

Data / Parameter HistHai

Data unit ha
Description Average annual area of deforestation by the baseline agent of
deforestation in stratum i for the 5 years prior to project
implementation
Source of data Data sources or own measurements
Value applied 0
Justification Analysis of remote sensing data and/or legal records and/or survey
information for lands owned or controlled or previously owned or
controlled by the baseline agent of deforestation.
Purpose of Data Calculation of annual deforestation by the baseline agent
Comments Must be re-evaluated whenever the baseline is revised
Parameter is found in module LK-ASP

Data / Parameter GHGLK-ECO

Data unit t CO2e
Description Net GHG emissions due to ecological leakage from the WRC project
activity up to year t
Source of data On the ground observations, remotely sensed data and GIS.
Value applied 0
Justification Under the applicability conditions of this methodology, ecological
leakage affecting the soil (peat) carbon pool does not occur, by
ensuring that the effect of hydrological connectivity with adjacent
areas is insignificant, as outlined in §5 of LK-ASP.
Purpose of Data Calculation of Leakage
Comments All of the Projects areas where blocking canals occurs are a
significant distance from any adjacent area, thus the risk of
ecological is insignificant.

Page 289 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Data and Parameters Monitored

Data / Parameter ΔCWPS-REDD
Data unit t CO2e
Description Net greenhouse gas emissions within the project area under the project scenario;
Source of data M-REDD
Description of MM&P See Module M-REDD
Frequency Upon each verification event. See also Module M-REDD
Value applied -1,466,626 t CO2e
Monitoring equipment See Module M-REDD
QA/QC See Module M-REDD
Purpose of data Calculation of project emissions
Calculation method See Module M-REDD
Comments Parameter is found in REDD-MF

Data / Parameter ΔCLK-AS,planned

Data unit t CO2e
Description Net greenhouse gas emissions due to activity shifting leakage for projects preventing planned
deforestation
Source of data Public records of Indonesian HTI concessions from MoEF. See also Module LK-ASP
Description of MM&P See Module LK-ASP
Frequency Upon each verification event. See also Module LK-ASP
Value applied 0
Monitoring equipment GIS and remote sensed images. See also Module LK-ASP
QA/QC See Module LK-ASP
Purpose of data Calculation of leakage
Calculation method See Module LK-ASP
Comments Parameter is found in REDD-MF

Data / Parameter GHGWPS-WRC

Data unit t CO2e
Description Net GHG emissions in the WRC project scenario up to year t*
Source of data Module M-PEAT
Description of MM&P See Module M-PEAT
Frequency Upon each verification event. See also Module M-PEAT
Value applied 1,799,282
Monitoring equipment See Module M-PEAT
QA/QC See Module M-PEAT
Purpose of data Calculation of project emissions
Calculation method See Module M-PEAT
Comments Parameter is found in REDD-MF

Data / Parameter GHGLK-ECO

Data unit t CO2e
Description Net GHG emissions due to ecological leakage from the WRC project activity up to year t
Source of data Module LK-ECO
Description of MM&P See Module LK-ECO
Frequency See Module LK-ECO
Value applied 0
Monitoring equipment See Module LK-ECO
QA/QC See Module LK-ECO
Purpose of data Calculation of leakage
Calculation method See Module LK-ECO
Comments Parameter is found in REDD-MF

Data / Parameter Project Forest Cover Monitoring Map

Data unit Dimensionless

Page 290 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Description Map showing the location of forest land within the project area at the beginning of each
monitoring period. If within the Project Area some forest land is cleared, the benchmark map
must show the deforested areas at each monitoring event
Source of data Remote sensing in combination with GPS data collected during ground truthing
Description of MM&P See Module M-REDD
Frequency See Module M-REDD
Value applied Maps provided for 2016 to 2020. No evidence or indication of deforestation or forest
degradation.
Monitoring equipment See Module M-REDD
QA/QC See Module M-REDD
Purpose of data The minimum map accuracy must be 90% for the classification of forest/non-forest in the
remote sensing imagery.
If the classification accuracy is less than 90% then the map is not acceptable for further
analysis. More remote sensing data and ground truthing data will be needed to produce a
product that reaches the 90% minimum mapping accuracy.
Frequency: Must be monitored at least every 5 years or if verification occurs on a fr equency of
less than every 5 years examination must occur prior to any verification event
Calculation method See Module M-REDD
Comments Where forest land contains more than one forest class, the map must be stratified into forest
classes using module X-STR.
Parameter is from module M-REDD

Data / Parameter ADefPA,i,u,t

Data unit Ha
Description Area of recorded deforestation in the project area in stratum i converted to land use u at time t
Source of data Remote sensing imagery
Description of MM&P See Module M-REDD
Frequency Frequency: Must be monitored at least every 5 years or if verification occurs on a frequency of
less than every 5 years examination must occur prior to any verification event
Value applied 0 ha. There is no deforestation or forest degradation detected during the monitoring period.
Monitoring equipment See Module M-REDD
QA/QC See Module M-REDD
Purpose of data Calculation of deforestation
Calculation method See Module M-REDD
Comments Ex-ante, an estimation shall be made of deforestation in the with-project case. If the belief is
that zero deforestation will occur within the project boundaries then this parameter may be set
to zero if clear infrastructure, hiring and policies are in place to prevent deforestation.
Parameter is from module M-REDD

Data / Parameter FLU

Data unit Dimensionless
Description Land use factor before or after conversion
Source of data Stock Change Factors are provided in Tables 5.5, 5.10, and 6.2 of the IPCC 2006GL Volume 4
Description of MM&P See Module M-REDD
Frequency See Module M-REDD
Value applied Factor = 1. No FLU because there is no skid trail creation detected during the monitoring
period.
Monitoring equipment See Module M-REDD
QA/QC See Module M-REDD
Purpose of data "Stock Change Factors as defined in IPCC 2006GL are equal to the carbon stock in the altered
condition as a proportion of the reference carbon stock. The management factor after
conversion can be conservative
Calculation method See Module M-REDD
Comments Parameter is from module M-REDD

Page 291 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Data / Parameter FMG

Data unit Dimensionless
Description Management factor before or after conversion
Source of data Stock Change Factors are provided in Tables 5.5, 5.10, and 6.2 of the IPCC 2006GL Volume 4
Description of MM&P See Module M-REDD
Frequency See Module M-REDD
Value applied Factor = 1. No FMG because there is no skid trail creation detected during the monitoring
period.
Monitoring equipment See Module M-REDD
QA/QC See Module M-REDD
Purpose of data "Stock Change Factors as defined in IPCC 2006GL are equal to the carbon stock in the altered
condition as a proportion of the reference carbon stock.
Calculation method See Module M-REDD
Comments Parameter is from module M-REDD

Data / Parameter FI
Data unit Dimensionless
Description Input factor before or after conversion
Source of data Stock Change Factors are provided in Tables 5.5, 5.10, and 6.2 of the IPCC 2006GL Volume 4
Description of MM&P See Module M-REDD
Frequency See Module M-REDD
Value applied Factor = 1.
Monitoring equipment See Module M-REDD
QA/QC See Module M-REDD
Purpose of data "Stock Change Factors as defined in IPCC 2006GL are equal to the carbon stock in the altered
condition as a proportion of the reference carbon stock.
Calculation method The land use factor after conversion can be conservatively assumed to equate 1, the default
value for meduim input.
Comments Parameter is from module M-REDD

Data / Parameter Aplanned,i

Data unit Ha
Description Total area of planned deforestation over the entire project lifetime for stratum i
Source of data Data sources or own measurements
Description of MM&P GPS coordinates and/or remote sensing data and/or legal parcel records.
Ex ante, Aplanned,i must be determined as described in Module BL-PL
Frequency Must be examined at least every 5 years or if verification occurs on a frequency of less than
every 5 years examination must occur prior to any verification event
Value applied 78,395.8 ha of planned deforestation
Monitoring equipment See Module BL-PL
QA/QC See section 9.3 of REDD+ MF or other VCS methodology that uses this module.
Purpose of data Calculation of baseline deforestation
Calculation method See Module BL-PL
Comments See Module BL-PL
Parameter is from modules M-REDD, BL-PL & LK-ASP

Page 292 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Data / Parameter ΔCBSL,i

Data unit t CO2e ha-1
Description Net carbon stock changes from planned deforestation in all pools in the baseline stratum i
Source of data Module BL-PL
Description of MM&P See Module BL-PL
Frequency See Module BL-PL
Value applied 19,697,112
Monitoring equipment See Module BL-PL
QA/QC See Module BL-PL
Purpose of data Calculation of leakage emissions, analysis of remote sensing data and/or legal records and/or
survey information for lands owned or controlled or previously owned or controlled by the
baseline agent of deforestation.
Calculation method See Module BL-PL
Comments Must be re-evaluated whenever the baseline is revised
Parameter is found in modules M-REDD & LK-ASP

Data / Parameter CAB_tree,Dense swamp forest

Data unit t C02e /ha
Description Carbon stock in aboveground biomass of trees in plot sp in stratum i
Source of data APRIL forest inventories, 2015 and 2020
Description of MM&P See Module CP-AB
Frequency See Module CP-AB
Value applied 150.3 t C0 2e /ha
Monitoring equipment See Module CP-AB
QA/QC See Module CP-AB
Purpose of data Calculation of aboveground biomass
Calculation method See Module CP-AB
Comments Parameter is from module M-REDD

Data / Parameter CAB_tree,Medium swamp forest

Data unit t C02e /ha
Description Carbon stock in aboveground biomass of trees in plot sp in stratum i
Source of data APRIL forest inventories, 2015 and 2020
Description of MM&P See Module CP-AB
Frequency See Module CP-AB
Value applied 112.7 t C0 2e /ha
Monitoring equipment See Module CP-AB
QA/QC See Module CP-AB
Purpose of data Calculation of aboveground biomass
Calculation method See Module CP-AB
Comments Parameter is from module M-REDD

Data / Parameter CAB_tree,Sparse swamp forest

Data unit t C02e /ha
Description Carbon stock in aboveground biomass of trees in plot sp in stratum i
Source of data See Module CP-AB
Description of MM&P See Module CP-AB
Frequency See Module CP-AB
Value applied 78.4 t C02e /ha
Monitoring equipment See Module CP-AB
QA/QC See Module CP-AB
Purpose of data Calculation of aboveground biomass
Calculation method See Module CP-AB
Comments Parameter is from module M-REDD

Page 293 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Data / Parameter CAB_tree,peat dome forest

Data unit tC
Description Carbon stock in aboveground biomass of trees in plot sp in stratum i
Source of data See Module CP-AB
Description of MM&P See Module CP-AB
Frequency See Module CP-AB
Value applied 199.3 t C0 2e /ha
Monitoring equipment See Module CP-AB
QA/QC See Module CP-AB
Purpose of data Calculation of aboveground biomass
Calculation method See Module CP-AB
Comments See Module CP-AB
Parameter is from module M-REDD

Data / Parameter AWPS,i,t or Ai,t

Data unit Ha
Description Area of project stratum i in year t
Source of data Own assessment
Description of MM&P GIS coverages, ground survey data and/or remote imagery (satellite or aerial photographs), as
outlined in Section 5.
The area of peat burnt (Apeatburn-WPS,i,t for the project scenario from Module M-PEAT and
Apeatburn-BSL,i,t for the baseline scenario from Module BL-PEAT) and area of peatland (not
open water, not burnt) (Apeatsoil-WPS,i,t for the project scenario from Module M-PEAT and
Apeatsoil-BSL,i,t for the baseline scenario from Module BL-PEAT) determine the difference
between the remaining carbon stock in the project scenario and baseline scenarios after 100
years. In the procedures in Section 5.4 these areas are together referred to as AWPS,i,t and
ABSL,i,t.
Frequency At each monitoring event
Value applied 130,090 ha
Monitoring equipment See Module M-PEAT
QA/QC See Section 9.3 of REDD+ MF or other VCS methodology that uses this module.
Purpose of data Calculation of project emissions
Calculation method See Module M-PEAT
Comments the area for AWPS,i,t100 must be used
Parameter is from module X-STR

Data / Parameter Ratepeatloss-WPS,i,t

Data unit m yr-1
Description Rate of peat loss due to subsidence and fire in the project scenario in stratum i in year t
Source of data Module M-PEAT

Description of MM&P See Module M-PEAT

Frequency See Module M-PEAT

Value applied The rate of peat loss due to subsidence and fire due in the project scenario is approximately
2.26 cm/year over the monitoring period.
Monitoring equipment See Module M-PEAT
QA/QC Calculation of baseline emissions
Purpose of data See Module X-STR
Calculation method See Module X-STR
Comments Parameter is from module X-STR

Page 294 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Data / Parameter GHGpeatsoil,CO2,i,t

Data unit t CO2e yr-1
Description GHG emissions from microbial decomposition of the peat soil in stratum i in year t
Source of data Module M-PEAT
Description of MM&P See Module M-PEAT
Frequency See Module M-PEAT
Value applied GHG emissions from microbial decomposition of the peat soil within the project boundary in
the baseline scenario during the monitoring period (17 June 2016 to 31 July 2020) is
15,390,409 t CO2e.
Monitoring equipment See Module BL-PEAT
QA/QC See Module BL-PEAT
Purpose of data Calculation of project emissions. See module M-PEAT
Calculation method See Module M-PEAT
Comments Parameter is from module X-STR

Data / Parameter EREDD,WPS,SS,i, Pool#

Data unit t CO2e
Description Percentage of uncertainty of Carbon stock or GHG sources (eg, trees, down dead wood, soil
organic carbon, emission from fertilizer addition, emission from biomass burning etc.) in the
project scenario
Source of data The terms denoting significant carbon stocks, GHG sources or leakage emissions used in
calculating net emission reductions from the following relevant modules: CP-AB, CP-D, CP-L,
CP-S, CP-W, E-BB, E-FFC, E-NA.
Description of MM&P See Module X-UNC
Frequency See Module X-UNC
Value applied 8.65%
Monitoring equipment See Module X-UNC
QA/QC See Module X-UNC
Purpose of data Calculation of uncertainty
Calculation method See Module X-UNC
Comments The ex ante estimation shall be derived directly from the estimations originating in the relevant
modules: CP-AB, CP-D, CP-L, CP-S, CP-W, E-BB, E-FFC, E-NA.
Parameter stems from module X-UNC

Data / Parameter UREDD,WPS,SS,i,pool#

Data unit %
Description Percentage uncertainty (expressed as 95% confidence interval as a percentage of the mean
where appropriate) for carbon stocks and greenhouse gas sources in the project case (1, 2…n
represent different carbon pools and/or GHG sources)
Source of data Calculations arising from field measurement data
Description of MM&P See Module X-UNC
Frequency See Module X-UNC
Value applied The calculated uncertainty in the AGB carbon stock inventory was 8 .65%.
Monitoring equipment See Module X-UNC
QA/QC See Module X-UNC
Purpose of data "Calculation of uncertainty. Uncertainty in pools derived from field measurement with 95%
confidence interval calculated as the standard error of the averaged plot measurements in
each stratum multiplied by the t value for the 95% confidence level.
Calculation method For wood products the uncertainty should be the confidence interval around the volume of
timber extracted from the forest.
For emission sources conservative parameters should be used sufficient to allow the
uncertainty to be set as zero."
Comments The ex ante estimation shall be derived directly from the estimations originating in the relevant
modules: CP-AB, CP-D, CP-L, CP-S, CP-W, E-BB, E-FFC, E-NA.
Parameter stems from module X-UNC

Page 295 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Data / Parameter GHGpeatburn-WPS,i,t

Data unit t CO2e ha-1 y-1
Description CO2 emissions from burning of peat within the project boundary in the project scenario in
stratum i in year t
Source of data IPCC default factors, literature or direct measurements
Description of MM&P See Module M-PEAT
Frequency At each monitoring period
Value applied 0 t CO2e ha-1 y-1. No fire or burning of peat detected during the monitoring period.
Monitoring equipment GIS and remote sensed images; see also Module M-PEAT
QA/QC See Module M-PEAT
Purpose of data Calculation of project emissions
Calculation method See Module M-PEAT
Comments Parameter is found in M-PEAT

Data / Parameter GHGproxy-CO2,i,t

Data unit t CO2e ha-1 y-1
Description Soil emission of CO2 as per the chosen proxy in stratum i at year t
Source of data (IPCC) default factors, literature values or direct measurements
Description of MM&P The estimation of GHG emissions in rewetted (for RPD projects) or undrained or partially drained
(for CUPP projects) peat follows similar procedures as described in Module BL-PEAT.
Frequency At each monitoring period
Value applied Soil emission of CO2 in rewetted peat was estimated to be 0 t CO2e ha-1 y-1.
Monitoring equipment See Module BL-PEAT
QA/QC See Section 9.3 of REDD+ MF or other VCS methodology that uses this module
Purpose of data Calculation of baseline emissions.
Calculation method See Module BL-PEAT
Comments Proxies must comply with VCS requirements on proxies. 11 It must be demonstrated that the proxy
used is strongly correlated with CO2 emissions by referring to IPCC, literature or own data. When
referring to own data, comparison with literature values must be made.
Parameter is found in M-PEAT

Data / Parameter GHGproxy-CH4,i,t

Data unit t CH4 ha-1 y-1
Description Soil emission of CH4 as per the chosen proxy in stratum i at year t
Source of data (IPCC) default factors, literature values or direct measurements
Description of MM&P The estimation of GHG emissions in rewetted (for RPD projects) or undrained or partially drained
(for CUPP projects) peat follows similar procedures as described in Module BL-PEAT.
Frequency At each monitoring period
Value applied Soil emission of CH4 in rewetted peat was estimated to be 0 t CH4 ha-1 y-1.
Monitoring equipment See Module BL-PEAT
QA/QC See Section 9.3 of REDD+ MF or other VCS methodology that uses this module
Purpose of data Calculation of project emissions
Calculation method See Module BL-PEAT
Comments Proxies must comply with VCS requirements on proxies. 12 It must be demonstrated that the proxy
used is strongly correlated with CO2 emissions by referring to IPCC, literature or own data. When
referring to own data, comparison with literature values must be made.
Parameter is found in M-PEAT

Data / Parameter Apeatsoil-WPS,i,t

Data unit ha
Description Area of peatland (not open water, not burnt) in stratum i in year t in the project scenario
Source of data Module X-STR
Description of MM&P See Module X-STR
Frequency See Module X-STR
Value applied 139,090 ha
Monitoring equipment See Module M-PEAT

Page 296 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

QA/QC See Section 9.3 of REDD+ MF or other VCS methodology that uses this module
Purpose of data Calculation of baseline emissions. Module X-STR
Calculation method See Module X-STR
Comments Parameter is found in M-PEAT

Data / Parameter Aditch-WPS,i,t

Data unit ha
Description Total area of ditch and other open water stratum i in year t in the baseline scenario
Source of data Module X-STR
Description of MM&P See Module X-STR
Frequency See Module X-STR
Value applied 9.3 ha at the end of the monitoring period.
Monitoring equipment See Module X-STR
QA/QC See Section 9.3 of REDD+ MF or other VCS methodology that uses this module
Purpose of data Calculation of project emissions. Module X-STR
Calculation method See Module X-STR
Comments Parameter is found in M-PEAT

Data / Parameter Apeatburn-WPS,i,t

Data unit ha
Description Area of peat burnt in stratum i in year t in the project scenario
Source of data Module X-STR
Description of MM&P The area of peat burnt can be assessed using field observations and/or remote sensing using
best-practice methods (see e.g., Congalton 1991; Congalton et al., 2008). Remote sensing-based
data on burnt peat areas must be validated by field observations or other, higher resolution
remote sensing data.
When using remote sensing, data must be georeferenced into a common geodetic system, for
example using the UTM system using best-practice methods in remote sensing (see e.g.,
Congalton 1991; Congalton et al., 2008). Semi-automated image classification approaches may
be applied. Strata must be validated by reference data collected in the field, other official
documentation or from recent independent higher resolution remote sensing imagery.
Frequency See Module X-STR
Value applied Area = 0 hectares. No peat burning was detected during the monitoring period.
Monitoring equipment See Module X-STR
QA/QC See Section 9.3 of REDD+ MF or other VCS methodology that uses this module
Purpose of data Calculation of project emissions.
Calculation method See Module M-PEAT
Comments Parameter is found in M-PEAT

Data / Parameter GHGpeatditch-CO2,i,t

Data unit CO2e ha-1 y-1
Description Emission of CO2 from ditch and open water stratum i at year t
Source of data Project-specific values; appropriate literature sources
Description of MM&P See Module M-PEAT
Frequency See Module M-PEAT
Value applied 3.01 t CO2e ha-1 y-1.
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. 2013 Supplement to the 2006
IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: Wetlands. Methodological guidance
on lands with wet and drained soils and constructed wetlands for wastewater trea tment.
Gyldenkaerne, S. and Lin, E. (eds). Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies [IGES].

Monitoring equipment See Module M-PEAT

QA/QC See Module M-PEAT
Purpose of data Calculation of baseline emissions. See Module M-PEAT
Calculation method See Module M-PEAT
Comments Parameter is found in M-PEAT

Page 297 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Data / Parameter GHGpeatditch-CH4,i,t

Data unit CO2e ha-1 y-1
Description Emission of CH4 from ditch and open water stratum i at year t
Source of data Project-specific values; appropriate literature sources
Description of MM&P See Module M-PEAT
Frequency See Module M-PEAT
Value applied 2,259 kg CH4 ha-1 yr-1 equivalent to 63.2 t CO2e ha-1 y-1.
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. 2013 Supplement to the 2006
IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: Wetlands. Methodological guidance
on lands with wet and drained soils and constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment.
Gyldenkaerne, S. and Lin, E. (eds). Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies [IGES].
Monitoring equipment See Module BL-PEAT
QA/QC See Module M-PEAT
Purpose of data Calculation of baseline emissions. See Module X-STR
Calculation method See Module M-PEAT
Comments Parameter is found in M-PEAT

Data / Parameter N
Data unit Dimensionless
Description Number of sample points
Source of data Recording and archiving of number of sample points
Description of See Module CP-AB
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied (Description of
MM&P)
Frequency of Monitoring must occur at least every ten years for baseline renewal.
monitoring/recording Where carbon stock enhancement is included monitoring shall occur at least every five years
(Frequency)
Value applied N/A
Monitoring equipment See Module CP-AB
QA/QC procedures to See Module CP-AB
be applied (QA/QC)
Purpose of data Monitoring
Calculation method See Module CP-AB
Comments Where carbon stock estimation occurs only for determination of the baseline this parameter
shall be known ex-ante. Where part of project monitoring, ex-ante the number of sample plots
shall be estimated based on projected sample

Data / Parameter DBH

Data unit cm
Description Diameter at breast height of a tree in cm
Source of data Field measurements in sample plots
Description of MM&P Typically measured 1.3m aboveground. Measure all trees above some minimum DBH in the
sample plots. The minimum DBH varies depending on tree species and climate; for instance,
the minimum DBH may be as small as 2.5 cm or as high as 20 cm, but for humid tropical
forests 10 cm is commonly used. Minimum DBH employed in inventories is held constant for
the duration of the project.
Frequency Monitoring must occur at least every ten years for baseline renewal.
Where carbon stock enhancement is included monitoring shall occur at least every five years
Value applied N/A
Monitoring equipment See Module CP-AB
QA/QC Standard quality control / quality assurance (QA/QC) procedures for forest inventory including
field data collection and data management shall be applied. Use or adaptation of QA/QCs
already applied in national forest monitoring, or available from published handbooks, or form
the IPCC GPG LULUCF 2003, is recommended.
Purpose of data Carbon stock in AGB
Calculation method See Module CP-AB

Page 298 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Comments Where carbon stock estimation occurs only for determination of the baseline this parameter shall
be known ex-ante. Where part of project monitoring, ex-ante DBH shall be estimated based on
projections of growth.

Data / Parameter H
Data unit m
Description Total height of tree
Source of data Field measurements in sample plots
Description of MM&P See Module CP-AB
Frequency Monitoring must occur at least every ten years for baseline renewal.
Where carbon stock enhancement is included monitoring shall occur at least every five years
Value applied N/A
Monitoring equipment See Module CP-AB
QA/QC See Module CP-AB
Purpose of data See Module CP-AB
Calculation method See Module CP-AB
Comments Where carbon stock estimation occurs only for determination of the baseline this parameter shall
be known ex-ante. Where part of project monitoring, ex-ante height shall be estimated based on
projections of growth.

Data / Parameter Ecological leakage process as described in Table 5.1

Data unit N/A
Description N/A
Source of data On the ground observations, remote sensed data and GIS
Description of MM&P See Module LK-ECO
Frequency At each monitoring
Value applied 0
Monitoring equipment See Module LK-ECO
QA/QC See Module LK-ECO and REDD+ MF
Purpose of data Assessing avoidance of leakage emissions
Calculation method See Module LK-ECO for process – not calculations
Comments N/A

Page 299 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Monitoring Plan

Monitoring Methods

The RER Carbon Project is required to undertake periodic monitoring of the Project and leakage area.

The RER-CP Monitoring Reporting and Verification (MRV) system uses a dynamic system that seeks to
identify, assess and create a mitigation plan for potential risks that might arise concerning the Project. The
system is established to ensure a process for monitoring Project progress and documenting lessons learned
or corrections that may be needed and incorporating them into Project decision-making for future monitoring
periods. The Project adopts the systems that are already in place and implemented for APRIL.

The company (i.e. APRIL) activity in Riau Province being PEFC certified, has in situ, a set of procedures and
systems in place (verified annually during the PEFC verification audits) that regulate the management of
documents, the procedures for verification and validation, etc. These are systems that RER and APRIL
management and staff are used to working with. The quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) systems
already in place will serve as a “backbone” for the Project QA/QC system, for example, to handle complaints
or non-conformities, etc.

The MRV Plan is described in detail in Appendix 24 - RER-CP MRV Plan; it is based on 10 main activities:

1. Remote Sensed Monitoring – Natural Disturbances/Anthropogenic Disturbances

2. Field Monitoring
a. Permanent Sample Plot (PSP) Inventory
b. Illegal Activities and Fire
c. Ground Water Table & Subsidence Monitoring
d. Changes of Peat Carbon Stock (i.e. bulk density and carbon contents) & Peat Depth
e. Dam & Canal Monitoring
f. Weather Monitoring
g. GHG Flux Measurements
3. Leakage Monitoring
4. Uncertainty Monitoring
5. Non-Permanence Risk Assessment
6. Quality Assurance/ Quality Control
7. Training
8. Big Data and Document Management
9. VCU Calculations
10. Stakeholder Access to Online Selected Documents

Page 300 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Policies for oversight and accountability of monitoring activities

General Approaches for Monitoring

The monitoring plan incorporates the latest scientific findings and new technologies as they become available
to increase effectiveness of existing practices systematically.

The monitoring plan includes monitoring changes in land cover, peat thickness and water table level, as per
the latest VCS VM0007 REDD+ Methodology Framework (REDD+ MF) requirements.

MRV Activities

1. Remotely Sensed Monitoring

Prior to verification and at least every 5 years, satellite images will be acquired by the Project of the Project
Area. Those images will be analysed to determine any evidence of forest loss or forest changes, either from
natural disturbances or from human-induced changes.

2. Field Monitoring

a. Permanent Sample Plot Inventory

The Project has established a network of 40 Permanent Sample Plots that will be monitored upon verification
but at least every 5 years. In practice, at least 50% of the plots will be measured at each monitoring event.

Page 301 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 43- Established Permanent Sample Plots (PSP) in red and AGB inventory plots.

Prior to plot measurement, the labels on each tree will be checked. In-growth (trees that have attained 5cm
DBH since the last measurement) will be identified and labelled for measurement. Trees that have died since
the last measurement will be identified – these should be measured in the current measurement event.
Trees that were declared dead in the previous measurement event should be checked to confirm the “dead”
status – these trees can be confirmed as dead and permanently removed from the live tree list for
subsequent PSP measurements.

The parameters and forest dynamics will then be measured, analysed and compiled to estimate the carbon
stock changes for above-ground biomass and regrowth of the forest.

b. Illegal Activities and Fire

Illegal logging is not considered a viable threat of the Project as there are no communities that reside directly
in the Project Area. Furthermore, the closest communities have limited means to access the Project Area (i.e.
by boat or on foot without roads). Nonetheless, on-the-ground conditions can change rapidly in the Province
of Riau and Indonesia.

The Project will maintain guard posts at the Project’s river access points along the Serkap, Turip and Sangar
rivers. The guard posts will record and monitor all river access and use conducted by boats into the Project

Page 302 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Area (primarily local fisherman). Regular field patrols by boat and foot will occur in the project area both for
unauthorised activity and for fire.

The Project, in conjunction with APRIL, monitors all fire hotspots on the Kampar Peninsula and the project
area for fire hotspots via multiple remote sensing platforms.

c. Ground Water Table & Subsidence Monitoring

Current Monitoring. The Project has a number of in situ automatic level-loggers, dipwells and subsidence
poles to monitor the peat characteristics. At present, there are 81 subsidence poles, of which 44 are
integrated with a manual dipwells in the Project Area. The Project also has 9 automatic level loggers, 5 of
which run (every 5km) along a north-south transect known as the PSM transect, originating from the GHG
Flux Tower. There are a further 4 automatic level loggers in the Project Area that pre-date the carbon project
(two in TBOT, one in GCN and one in SMN). The distribution of these monitoring points is set forth in Map 44
below. Numerous automatic level-loggers are also currently in situ outside of the Project Area in the Project
Zone and can be used to monitor for ecological leakage issues.

Medium Term Increases. In addition to the current monitoring stations, the Project intends to increase its
monitoring capabilities so that there are at a minimum 10 automatic level-loggers and subsidence poles on
dedicated transects that correspond to each of the three peat strata. These will be positioned, if feasible, to
correspond to current PSP locations. This will be completed before the end of 2024 to coincide with the
baseline readjustment.

Long term, the Project intends to increase the current monitoring such that there will be one monitoring point
for 50% of every 300 ha in the Project Area classified as Deep Peat (300-500cm) and Very Deep Peat (500-
700 cm). Further there will be one monitoring point for 33% of every 1000 ha in the Project Area classified as
Extremely Very Deep Peat (700+ cm). Some or all of these monitoring points will be automatic level loggers.

The density of monitoring equipment, i.e. dipwells or level loggers and subsidence poles will then be
adequate for long term scientific monitoring. Map 44 shows the possible locations for monitoring locations
and transects.

Page 303 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Map 44- The Existing and Proposed New Monitoring transects or Clusters

d. Changes of Peat Carbon Stock & Peat Depth (i.e. Bulk Density, Nitrogen, Carbon Contents and Depth)

In line with water table levels, changes in carbon stocks must also be monitored. The monitoring will be done
at least every 10 years but maybe also done once every 5 years. Peat depth will also be re-assessed at least
every 10 years at the baseline review event. The sample size of the peat depth in line with the current
methodological requirements unless a methodological deviation is agreed to with the VCS. It can be assumed
that the sample size will be at least as intensive as past efforts, which resulted in 443 peat depth points (see
above at § 3.3.4.2). However, it is more likely that the effort will be more intensive with peat depth sampling
occurring according to the Indonesian National requirements as well as the Project’s peat expert. As such,
depth sampling would be conducted in 15% of the total are at a sampling rate of 1 depth measurement per
25 ha. This would result in 780 peat depth and carbon content samples. The Projects peat expert, Dr. Gusti
Anshari106 believes that this approach is sufficient. All resampling will be conducted in transects that cross
the concessions in line with the current methodological requirements in order to ensure a new depth map
can be generated. The Project will also work with the VCS to consider the appropriateness of the above in
light of the updated requirements in VCS VMD046 (M-PEAT)107.The change of carbon stocks in peats indicate
the rate of peat accumulation if the change is positive. On the other hand, the negative change of carbon
stock indicates peat as a source of carbon. The ratio of carbon and nitrogen indicates the potential peat
decomposition.

Page 304 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

e. Dam & Canal Monitoring

The Project has since 2016 been actively blocking the 146 km of canals on the project area with hand-built
dams as a significant component of the WRC project activity. Foot patrols regularly monitor both the dams
and canals. The dams are monitored to ensure that they remain in position and intact. If there is any
degradation to their structure, this is noted, and they are scheduled for service. Monitoring and maintaining
the dams is an integral part of ensuring that the Project’s rewetting activity remains in place. Canals are also
monitored to determine if they are filling in, collapsing or in some other way reverting to a more natural state.
The Project will establish a standardised operating procedure (SOP) to undertake canal and dam monitoring.

f. Weather Monitoring

Currently, the Project has access to weather data from APRIL which operates nine (9) automated weather
stations on the Kampar Peninsula and has up to date weather data. Rainfall, temperature, wind speed and
humidity are essential variables for assessing the health of peatlands and will be monitored in an ongoing
fashion. Weather monitoring is also important to assist with monitoring water balance, anticipate dry seasons
and document when rain deficit occurs. The Project will use the weather monitoring capabilities of the GHG
flux tower in GCN to provide automatic and sophisticated real-time weather monitoring for temperature,
precipitation, humidity and wind.

g. GHG Flux Monitoring

In 2017 the Project began the monitoring local GHG emissions by directly monitoring proxy variables for GHG
flux that are used when calculating GHG emissions. RER will continue to monitor forest and non-forest cover
as well as water table levels. The in situ GHG flux tower utilises the Eddy Covariance Technique to monitor
greenhouse gas emissions, ecosystem CO 2 exchange, groundwater level and subsidence rate. It measures
the net balance of all vertical carbon dioxide (CO 2) source and removal pathways. It provides high-frequency
measurements (every 60 min) with temporal variability and ecosystem-scale measurements, i.e. 200 ha
around the tower.

3. Leakage Monitoring

Appropriate production and water table data from the Project Area and Project Zone will be collected,
analysed and compiled upon each verification event to estimate activity shifting and ecological leakage.

4. Uncertainty Monitoring

Uncertainty linked to the parameters monitored will be automatically calculated using excel models.

5. Non-Permanence Risk Assessment

The non-permanence risk tool will be reviewed upon each verification event and updated with respect to any
relevant data collected.

Page 305 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

6. Procedures for internal auditing and Quality Assurance/Quality Control

The Project via APRIL, implements a rigorous QA/QC system to ensure the long-term accuracy of the data that
is collected, to ensure a robust data storage system and to create a systematic data management structure.
This QA/QC system is entirely integrated into the already existing APRIL QA/QC system that has been
implemented for PEFC certification. This system is reviewed annually during PEFC Verification audits, so as to
guarantee of the quality and dynamic nature of the QA/QC system.

7. Training

All new personal participating in PSPs inventory/control, water table monitoring, etc. will be trained following
PSP Inventory/Control/Monitoring Procedures specifications and standard RER and APRIL practices, as much
as is reasonably possible. Training will be provided to ensure consistent data collection of all monitoring
equipment and techniques.

8. Data and Document Management

All data and documents are reviewed and controlled managed and stored in a manner that complies with
standard APRIL practices, or as much as is reasonably possible. Data will be stored and managed following
APRIL’s ISO Data Management procedures and will be kept for at least 10 years.

9. VCU Calculation

For each verification event, VCU vintage is estimated and updated based on the parameters monitoring
results.

10. Stakeholder Access to Online Selected Documents

The role of stakeholders is significant for contributing to the performance of RER project. Having access to
selected monitoring documents would help stakeholders to participate in the monitoring platform. The Project
will report to stakeholders at least annually, including the local community through annual reporting which
will be available online. The RER Community teams will also provide reporting directly to the local
communities.

Sampling Approach

The sampling approaches for the two Project Categories, REDD & WRC. In general terms though, the over
arching goal of monitoring is to ensure the accurate scientific description of the changes to the landscape
over time. The Project therefore aims to achieve a target precision level for its monitoring at a 95%
confidence interval, +/- 10%; which is sufficient for the requirements of VCS and GHG project level
monitoring. Should the monitoring not achieve the target precision requirements, then additional monitoring
will be conducted until the targets are met.

Page 306 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

REDD Project Category

For each monitoring period, the Project will acquire appropriate data from remote sensing platforms to
determine if there are obvious changes in land cover, If there are obvious areas of disturbance, this will be
investigated and sampled for AGB. Otherwise, AGB and regrowth of the project area where GHG crediting
takes place will be conducted by remeasurement of PSPs. Any areas that might have been subject to fire
disturbance will also be sampled for loss of AGB and loss of peat.

Remote Sensing Monitoring

RER collect remote sensing imagery on a continuous basis in conjunction with APRIL (plantation based)
planning team. Images acquired are for the entirety of the RER area and from multiple satellite sources,
primarily Landsat 8 (15m resolution) and Sentinel (resolution) and others as required. The APRIL team in
Kerinci are continuously monitoring land use change in the protected areas within the entire APRIL estate and
in RER and immediately notify RER if any suspicious activity occurs within the Project boundary or close to the
project boundary. The remote sensed images are also accessed for changes to land cover are determined
and reported.

Above ground biomass

Originally 159 AGB inventory plots were sampled, and then in 2020, a further 10 AGB inventory plots were
measured in the PT GAN peat dome forest to support the AGB baseline assessment. It is assumed that these
plots will be completely remeasured for the baseline reassessment sometime prior to 2026.

In 2020, RER selected 40 of the original plots (from the original 159) within the REDD area (where avoided
deforestation would be assumed to occur as part of the baseline scenario, and also known as the “plantation
development area”) for ongoing assessment of natural forest growth. These plots were established as
Permanent Sample Plots (PSPs) and will be monitored during each verification period. Every monitoring
period at least 20 PSPs will be monitored so that an appropriate representative sample of each land cover
type is monitored. This means that all 40 PSPs will be re-measured every two monitoring periods. See Map
44 above.

Illegal Activities and Fire

RER monitors the potential for illegal activities and fire on a 24 hour, 7 days a week basis via remote sensing.
Additionally, security rangers man guard-posts on the boundary of the Project area on all river access ways
and roadways. All movements of people into the Project Area are recorded and reported, and suspicious
activities are managed through their security SOP and protocols.

APRIL has a sophisticated hotspot fire monitoring program across all their estates and RER is also covered by
this programme. RER receive daily reports on fire risks and fires on their boundaries and within RER. A
procedure is in place to determine fire management activities in response to the daily fire risk assessment.
Forest protection engages rangers to undertake fire patrols and to investigate reported hotspots.

Page 307 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

WRC Project Category

For each monitoring period the Project will assess the effectiveness of the canal blocking program and its
ability to maintain a natural water table level. This will be done by regular monitoring of all canals and dams
as well as the regular monitoring of water table levels (via dip wells or level-loggers) and potential increase or
decrease of the peat (via subsidence poles). The project will also monitor rainfall on a daily basis in order to
correlate water table with natural precipitation.

Dam & Canal Monitoring

All dams are inspected visually at least once per year usually, during the dry season. The maintenance
program is then prepared based on the observed condition of the dams in the canals.

Ground Water Table & Subsidence Monitoring

RER maintain an extensive network of ground water and subsidence monitoring stations, as of March 2021,
which are described below.

• 81 Subsidence poles: Measure the rate of peat subsidence, and are monitored at least once per
year;
• 44 Dip wells: Manually measure water depth, and are monitored at least every two months;
• 9 Automatic level loggers: Automatically measure water depth. The data is collected from the field
approximately every 6 months.
Peat Carbon Stock

Peat Carbon stock will be resampled at each baseline event. Peat sampling is conducted for depth and
carbon content pursuant to the respective SOPs. Ongoing sampling will be done to at least the same level of
intensity that was originally undertaken for the Project. However, as the sampling requirements for peat have
altered with the latest methodological updates in September of 2020, sampling will be conducted in
transects crossing the Project Area at the sampling rate noted above in §5.3.2.1. It is assumed that these
Peat Carbon stock and depth will be completely remeasured for the baseline reassessment sometime prior to
2026.

Procedures for handling non-conformances with the validated monitoring plan.

The RER-Carbon Project maintains a method to handle internal auditing and non-conformities that are
addressed through APRIL’s SOPs that incorporate multiple QA/QC measures. All QA/QC systems are based on
ISO certified systems that are in place throughout all of APRIL’s Riau concessions. All data is collected,
recorded, stored, and reported. All data is subject to review and approval by team leaders or project
managers concerning specific written SOPs, which cover different levels of operations and data management.
A list of SOPs which have already been or will be developed is presented in the VCS PD Appendices. Copies of
SOPs are available to validators on request.

Page 308 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Data Management Methods and Structure

Data that is generated by RER-CP is centrally managed in the Kerinci offices and as part of an online, user-
restricted proprietary database. Hard copies of all paper-based data or data sheets are archived in field
offices. Duplicate copies may be stored centrally in RER’s headquarter in Riau or alternatively in APRIL
headquarters. Field data is uploaded directly into the RER and APRIL database from the field or head office,
allowing simultaneous multi-user input through a local server network. After the database server collates the
data, it is available to the Project and may be adapted as necessary to fulfil all RER Project or APRIL
monitoring and reporting needs. All data will be kept for at least 10 years.

To ensure the traceability and security of data entry and QA/QC procedures, all users are allocated unique
user IDs and passwords in order to access any of APRIL or RER’s database. Access to the databases is
restricted based on an individual’s role and responsibility per APRIL’s standard data policies.

Organizational structure, responsibilities, and competencies of the personnel

Title Name Responsibilities Competencies

Project Bradford M. 1) Remote Sensed Bradford M. Sanders is currently the Deputy Head of
Coordinator Sanders (RS) Monitoring - Conservation of Riau Ecosystem Restoration (RER).
Forest
(BMS) Disturbances Bradford has tremendous experience in the forestry
2) Field Monitoring industry and has held multiple roles such as a fire
a) PSPs
Monitoring protection specialist and fuels specialist since 1988.
b) Unauthorised Bradford was the executive head of The Royal Society for
Activities and
the Protection of Birds / PT Restorasi Ekosistem Indonesia
Fire
Monitoring prior to his work in RER. Bradford provides operational
c) Ground Water management and leadership to 170 employees and staff
Table &
to protect and restore 150,693 ha of Ecosystem
Subsidence
Monitoring Restoration Concessions in lowland peat tropical
d) Peat Carbon rainforest on the Kampar Peninsula and Padang Island,
Stock
Monitoring and coordinates environmental and social technical
e) Dam & Canal advice from collaborators. Bradford also promotes the
Monitoring
RER program to customers, financiers, academics, and in
f) Weather
Monitoring public forums.
g) GHG Flux Bradford has 21 publications on a wide range of topics
Measurements
3) Leakage regarding strategic forest management to integrated
Monitoring forest fire management.
4) Uncertainty
Monitoring
5) Non-Permanence Education:
Risk Assessment
6) Quality Assurance M.S. Forestry, Clemson University, 1987
/ Quality Control B.S. Forest Management, Clemson University, 1985
7) Training

Page 309 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

8) Data &
Documentation
Management
9) VCU Calculation
10) Community &
Stakeholder
Reporting
Field Work Nawari (NAW) 1) Remote Sensed Nawari has held multiple roles as a forest biometrician
Supervisor (RS) Monitoring - and strategy and remote sensing and mapping manager
Forest
Disturbances in APRIL since 2012. Nawari is currently the Strategy and
2) Field Monitoring Tactical Forest Planning Manager of APRIL and
a) PSPs
established the permanent sample plots for above ground
Monitoring
b) Unauthorised biomass in the RER project area. Nawari played an
Activities and essential role in land cover and land use change
Fire
Monitoring monitoring and provided forestry density data through
d) Peat Carbon field resistograph measurement and developed the
Stock
Monitoring mathematical prediction model.
6) Quality Assurance Nawari has 6 scientific publications regarding agroforestry
/ Quality Control
7) Training regimes and mortality and production of Acacia
plantations in Indonesia. Nawari’s latest publication in
January 2021 is about Suitability Analysis and
Environmental Carrying Capacity for Ecotourism
Development in Central Lombok.

Education:
PhD. Environmental Science, Riau University, 2020 -
Present
M.S. Environmental Science, Gadjah Mada University
(UGM), 2020
M.S. Computer Science, Gadjah Mada University (UGM),
2011
B.S. Forest Resources Conservation, Gadjah Mada
University (UGM), 2004
Field Work Dr. Sofyan 2) Remote Sensed Sofyan Kurnianto is currently the Manager - Biogenic
Analyst Kurnianto (RS) Monitoring - Carbon Assessment and Sustainability Support, Peatland
Forest
(SK) Disturbances Science. Sofyan is a peatland ecologist with the research
3) Field Monitoring interest on the linking between biogeochemical processes
d) PSPs
with the peat hydraulic properties. He has experience on
Monitoring
e) Peat Carbon the quantifying carbon stocks and greenhouse gas
Stock emission in the tropical peatlands. He developed the
Monitoring
framework of greenhouse gas inventory system at the

Page 310 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

6) Quality Assurance corporate level to quantify the total emission along the
/ Quality Control value chain, including the land use change emission.
8) Data &
Documentation Sofyan has developed the research on linking hydrological
Management and biogecochemical cycle in tropical peatlands and
quantified the total greenhouse gas emission from land
use and land use change for all APRIL land bank.

Education:
PhD. Wetlands Hydrology, Oregon State University (OSU),
2017
M.S. Geochemical System Specialisation, University of
New Hampshire, 2013
B.S. Meteorology and Geophysics, Bogor Agricultural
Unveristy, 2004
Technical Ralph J. 1) Remote Sensed Ralph J. Strebel has worked in the climate change sector
Partner Strebel (RJS) (RS) Monitoring - since 2007, almost exclusively with forest carbon projects.
Forest
Disturbances Ralph has substantial experience in all aspects of forest
2) Field Monitoring carbon projects, from assessments to project
a) PSPs
development. He successfully developed the world’s first
Monitoring
3) Leakage REDD+ Improved Forest Management project in Africa,
Monitoring worked assessing and developing numerous large-scale
4) Uncertainty
Monitoring REDD+ projects in Indonesia, and was the lead author of
5) Non-Permanence the Republic of Congo’s successful application to join the
Risk Assessment
World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, including
6) VCU Calculation
establishing the National Reference Emission Levels for
the country.

Ralph holds degrees from the University of Colorado –

Boulder (International Affairs / Political Science) and
Lancaster University (Hons. Law). He is a licensed attorney
in the States of Colorado and Arizona as well as being a
qualified solicitor in England & Wales.
Sustainability Craig R. 10) Community & Craig Tribolet has more than twenty years in
Stakeholder
Operations Tribolet (CRT) environmental and forest management in Asia and
Reporting
Australia with experience in both the public, private, and
academic sectors as a forester, consultant and ecologist
and has
demonstrated skills and experience in developing,
managing, and delivering large scale, multi-stakeholder

Page 311 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

projects. Craig has a strong customer, contractor and

community focus. Ability to listen to and integrate
stakeholder needs and deliver results. Craig is currently
the Sustainability Operations Manager and has held the
position since 2014. Craig is responsible for all facets of
forest protection including sustainability, certification, fire
management and conservation forest management, as
well as leading audits teams to meet
domestic and international audits.

Education:
M.S. Business Administration,
Corporate Finance and Accounting, Leadership and
Project Management. Australian National University, 2006
B.S. Ecology, Australian National University, 1996
B.S. Forestry, Australian National University, 1995
Technical Chandra S. 2) Field Monitoring Chandra S. Deshmukh is experienced in the design and
Monitoring Deshmukh f) Weather implementation of programs aimed at Greenhouse Gas
Monitoring
(CSD) g) GHG Flux (GHG) removals and emissions monitoring and reporting
Measurements in hydroelectric and forestry sector. Chandra has an
excellent scientific publication record to prove science
background in GHG removals and emissions monitoring
and reporting.
Chandra has 38 scientific publications, and 28 of them
being presented at international conferences. The latest
being the presentation on significant carbon loss from a
natural tropical peatland under current climate at the
European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly in
May 2020.

Education:
PhD. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Hydroelectric
Reservior in Subtropical South Asia, Université Paul
Sabatier (Toulouse III), 2013
MS. Water Resources Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology, 2008
B.S. Agricultural Engineering, CAE, Jabalpur (JNKVV),
2006

Page 312 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Data Kuswondo 2) Field Monitoring Kuswondo (Dodo) ST has a wide experience with land
Coordinator (Dodo) ST a) PSPs survey equipment such as total station, Drone Phantom 4
Monitoring
(KUS) 6) Quality Assurance Pro, Water Pass and GPS and with hydrography survey
/ Quality Control such as echosounder, side scan sonar, SVP (sound
8) Data &
velocity profile) and Veripos (GPS). Kuswondo is
Documentation
Management responsible for analytical data monitoring such as
hydrology, weather, vegetation, restoration and social
monitoring since 2017. Kuswondo has undergone training
courses throughout Southeast Asia from training for QINSy
Software with SAFA Geoscience in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
to Prevention and Management of Human and Wildlife
Conflicts in Harimau Kita, Indonesia.
Kuswondo has completed topographic surveys for a
double track rail line, limestone quarry, sports facility,
housing complexes, water pipeline, commercial
development, sanitation, cement and digital satellite
imagery mainly in Java but also in West Timur and East
and Central Kalimantan.

Education:
BS. Geomatic Engineering, Sepuluh Nopember Institute of
Technology, 2013
Field Dibyo 2) Field Monitoring Dibyo Kuswiyono is currently the Estate Manager in
Operations Kuswiyono b) Unauthorised Restoration Kampar Peninsula and has held the position
Activities and
(DK) Fire since 2020. Dibyo has held multiple positions in RAPP
Monitoring since 2003 as a forester and plantation quality assessor.
6) Quality Assurance
During this time, Dibyo has developed his professional
/ Quality Control
9) Data & career and has grown to be an exceptional forest
Documentation protection executive in Restoration Pulau Padang and a
Management
restoration executive in Restoration Kampar Peninsula.
Dibyo has undergone numerous training courses to
further develop his skills as an estate manager in RER
such as ISO training in ISO 14001 & OHSAS 18001 in
2006 and water management in 2015 to leadership &
people management in 2020 and restoration techniques
in peat area in 2021.
Education:
M.S. Environmental Science, Riau University, 2020
B.S. Silviculture in Forestry, Gadjah Mada University, 2003

Page 313 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

6 APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Proof of Legal Ownership

Appendix 1 - Lists the proof of legal ownership of each concession in the project area.

PT. GAN IUPHHK-RE

Page 314 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. GAN IUPHHK-RE

Page 315 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. GAN IUPHHK-RE

Page 316 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. GAN IUPHHK-RE

Page 317 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. GAN IUPHHK-RE

Page 318 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. GAN IUPHHK-RE

Page 319 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. GAN IUPHHK-RE

Page 320 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. GAN RKU

Page 321 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. GAN MONEV-Certificate

Page 322 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. GCN IUPHHK-RE

Page 323 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. GCN IUPHHK-RE

Page 324 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. GCN IUPHHK-RE

Page 325 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. GCN IUPHHK-RE

Page 326 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. GCN IUPHHK-RE

Page 327 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. GCN IUPHHK-RE

Page 328 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. GCN IUPHHK-RE

Page 329 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. GCN IUPHHK-RE

Page 330 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. GCN RKU

Page 331 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. GCN MONEV-Certificate

Page 332 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. SMN IUPHHK-RE

Page 333 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. SMN IUPHHK-RE

Page 334 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. SMN IUPHHK-RE

Page 335 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. SMN IUPHHK-RE

Page 336 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. SMN IUPHHK-RE

Page 337 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. SMN IUPHHK-RE

Page 338 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. SMN IUPHHK-RE

Page 339 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. SMN IUPHHK-RE

Page 340 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. SMN IUPHHK-RE

Page 341 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. SMN IUPHHK-RE

Page 342 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. SMN IUPHHK-RE

Page 343 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. SMN IUPHHK-RE

Page 344 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. SMN RKU

Page 345 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. SMN MONEV-Certificate

Page 346 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. TBOT IUPHHK-RE

Page 347 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. TBOT IUPHHK-RE

Page 348 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. TBOT IUPHHK-RE

Page 349 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. TBOT IUPHHK-RE

Page 350 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. TBOT IUPHHK-RE

Page 351 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. TBOT IUPHHK-RE

Page 352 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. TBOT IUPHHK-RE

Page 353 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. TBOT IUPHHK-RE

Page 354 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. TBOT IUPHHK-RE

Page 355 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. TBOT IUPHHK-RE

Page 356 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. TBOT IUPHHK-RE

Page 357 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. TBOT RKU

Page 358 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

PT. TBOT MONEV-Certificate

Page 359 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Appendix 2. Recorded Flora and Fauna

Appendix 2 lists all the flora and fauna species recording in the Project Area.

Mammals

No. Family Scientific Name English name Record IUCN GoI (P.106) CITES Last Updated
1 Tupaiidae Tupaia glis Common Treeshrew 2016/12 LC II 06/10/2019
2 Tupaiidae Tupaia minor Lesser Treeshrew 2016/12 LC II 06/10/2019
3 Tupaiidae Tupaia tana Large Treeshrew 2016/12 LC II 06/10/2019
4 Cynocephalidae Galeopterus variegatus Sunda Flying Lemur 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
5 Lorisidae Nycticebus coucang Sunda Slow Loris 2016/12 EN √ I 06/10/2019
6 Cercopithecidae Presbytis femoralis ssp. percura East Sumatran Banded Langur 2016/12 VU II 06/10/2019
7 Cercopithecidae Trachypithecus cristatus Silvered Langur 2016/12 VU √ II 06/10/2019
8 Cercopithecidae Macaca fascicularis Long-tailed Macaque 2016/12 LC II 06/10/2019
9 Cercopithecidae Macaca nemestrina Pig-tailed Macaque 2016/12 EN II 06/10/2019
10 Hylobatidae Hylobates agilis Agile Gibbon 2016/12 EN √ I 06/10/2019
11 Sciuridae Petaurista petaurista Red Giant Flying Squirrel 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
12 Sciuridae Petaurista elegans Grey-headed Flying Squirrel 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
13 Sciuridae Iomys horsfieldii Javanese Flying Squirrel 2016/12 LC √ 06/10/2019
14 Sciuridae Ratufa affinis Pale Giant Squirrel 2016/12 NT II 06/10/2019
15 Sciuridae Ratufa bicolor Black Giant Squirrel 2016/12 NT II 06/10/2019
16 Sciuridae Exilisciurus exilis Least Pygmy Squirrel 2016/12 DD 06/10/2019
17 Sciuridae Nannosciurus melanotis Black-eared Squirrel 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
18 Sciuridae Sundasciurus hippurus Horse-tailed Squirrel 2016/12 NT 06/10/2019
19 Sciuridae Sundasciurus lowii Low's Squirrel 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
20 Sciuridae Sundasciurus tenuis Slender Squirrel 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
21 Sciuridae Lariscus insignis Three-striped Gound Squirrel 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
22 Sciuridae Rhinosciurus laticaudatus Shrew-faced Squirrel 2017/04 NT 06/10/2019
23 Sciuridae Callosciurus notatus Plantain Squirrel 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
24 Sciuridae Callosciurus prevostii Prevost's Squirrel 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
25 Muriidae Rattus tanezumi Oriental House Rat 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
26 Muriidae Rattus tiomanicus Malaysian Field Rat 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
27 Muriidae Rattus argentiventer Ricefield Rat 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
28 Muriidae Rattus exulans Polynesian Rat 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
29 Muriidae Sundamys muelleri Muller's Giant Rat 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
30 Muriidae Niviventer cremoriventer Dark-tailed Tree Rat 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
31 Muriidae Maxomys rajah Rajah Spiny Rat 2016/12 VU 06/10/2019
32 Muriidae Maxomys whiteheadi Whitehead's Spiny Rat 2016/12 VU 06/10/2019

Page 360 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

33 Muriidae Chiropodomys gliroides Indomalayan Pencil-tailed Tree Mouse 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019

34 Hystricidae Hystrix brachyura Malayan Porcupine 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
35 Erinaceidae Echinosorex gymnura Moonrat 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
36 Soricidae Chimarrogale himalayica Elegant Water Shrew 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
37 Soricidae Crocidura fuliginosa Southeast Asian Shrew 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
38 Pteropodidae Balionycteris maculata Spotted-winged Fruit Bat 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
39 Pteropodidae Megaerops ecaudatus Temminck's Tailless Fruit Bat 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
40 Pteropodidae Pteropus vampyrus Large Flying Fox 2016/12 NT II 06/10/2019
41 Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus borneensis Bornean Horseshoe Bat 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
42 Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus sedulus Lesser Wooly Horseshoe Bat 2016/12 NT 06/10/2019
43 Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus trifoliatus Trefoil Horseshoe Bat 2016/12 NT 06/10/2019
44 Emballonuridae Emballonura monticola Lesser Sheath-tailed Bat 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
45 Vespertilionidae Murina suilla Brown Tube-nosed Rat 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
46 Vespertilionidae Kerivoula hardwickii Common Woolly Bat 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
47 Vespertilionidae Kerivoula intermedia Small Woolly Bat 2016/12 NT 06/10/2019
48 Vespertilionidae Kerivoula minuta Least Woolly Bat 2016/12 NT 06/10/2019
49 Vespertilionidae Kerivoula papillosa Papillose Woolly Bat 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
50 Vespertilionidae Kerivoula pellucida Clear-winged Wooly Bat 2016/12 NT 06/10/2019
51 Vespertilionidae Phoniscus atrox Groove Toothed Bat 2016/12 NT 06/10/2019
52 Manidae Manis javanica Sunda Pangolin 2016/12 CR √ I 06/10/2019
53 Felidae Pardofelis marmorata Marbled Cat 2016/12 NT √ I 06/10/2019
54 Felidae Prionailurus bengalensis Leopard Cat 2016/12 LC √ II 06/10/2019
55 Felidae Prionailurus planiceps Flat-headed Cat 2016/12 EN √ I 06/10/2019
56 Felidae Neofelis diardi Sunda Clouded Leopard 2016/12 VU √ I 06/10/2019
57 Felidae Panthera tigris ssp. sumatrae Sumatran Tiger 2016/12 CR √ I 06/10/2019
58 Herpestidae Herpestes brachyurus Short-tailed Mongoose 2016/12 NT 06/10/2019
59 Viveridae Arctictis binturong Binturong 2016/12 VU √ 06/10/2019
60 Viveridae Arctogalidia trivirgata Small-toothed Palm Civet 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
61 Viveridae Paguma larvata Masked Palm Civet 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
62 Viveridae Cynogale bennettii Otter Civet 2018/10 EN √ II 06/10/2019
63 Viveridae Paradoxurus hermaphroditus Common Palm Civet 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
64 Viveridae Hemigalus derbyanus Banded Civet 2016/12 NT II 06/10/2019
65 Viveridae Viverra tangalunga Malay Civet 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
66 Prionodontidae Prionodon linsang Banded Linsang 2016/12 LC √ II 06/10/2019
67 Ursidae Helarctos malayanus Malayan Sun Bear 2016/12 VU √ I 06/10/2019
68 Mustelidae Aonyx cinereus Asian Small-clawed Otter 2016/12 VU I 06/10/2019
69 Mustelidae Lutrogale perspicillata Smooth-coated Otter 2016/12 VU √ I 06/10/2019
70 Mustelidae Martes flavigula Yellow-throated Marten 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019
71 Mustelidae Mustela nudipes Malay weasel 2019/10 LC 20/10/2019
72 Suidae Sus scrofa Wild Boar 2016/12 LC 06/10/2019

Page 361 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

73 Suidae Sus barbatus Bearded Pig 2016/12 VU 06/10/2019

74 Tragulidae Tragulus spp. Oriental Chevrotain 2016/12 LC √ 06/10/2019
75 Cervidae Rusa unicolor Sambar Deer 2016/12 VU √ 06/10/2019
76 Tapiridae Tapirus indicus Malay Tapir 2016/12 EN √ I 06/10/2019

Herpeto Fauna

No Group Family Scientific Name Record IUCN GoI (P.106) CITES Last Updated
1 Amphibian Bufonidae Duttaphrynus melanostictus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
2 Amphibian Bufonidae Ingerophrynus biporcatus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
3 Amphibian Bufonidae Ingerophrynus divergens 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
4 Amphibian Bufonidae Ingerophrynus quadriporcatus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
5 Amphibian Bufonidae Phrynoidis asper 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
6 Amphibian Bufonidae Pseudobufo subasper 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
7 Amphibian Dicroglossidae Fejervarya cancrivora 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
8 Amphibian Dicroglossidae Fejervarya limnocharis 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
9 Amphibian Dicroglossidae Limnonectes paramacrodon 2016/12 NT 17/06/2019
10 Amphibian Microhylidae Phrynella pulchra 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
11 Amphibian Ranidae Hylarana baramica 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
12 Amphibian Ranidae Hylarana chalconota 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
13 Amphibian Ranidae Hylarana erythraea 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
14 Amphibian Ranidae Hylarana glandulosa 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
15 Amphibian Ranidae Hylarana parvaccola 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
16 Amphibian Ranidae Hylarana raniceps 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
17 Amphibian Ranidae Hylarana rawa 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
18 Amphibian Ranidae Hylarana sp1. 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
19 Amphibian Rhacophoridae Nyctixalus pictus 2016/12 NT 17/06/2019
20 Amphibian Rhacophoridae Polypedates colletti 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
21 Amphibian Rhacophoridae Polypedates leucomystax 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
22 Amphibian Rhacophoridae Polypedates macrotis 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
23 Reptile Agamidae Aphaniotis fusca 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
24 Reptile Agamidae Bronchocela cristatella 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
25 Reptile Agamidae Draco quinquefasciatus 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
26 Reptile Agamidae Draco sp. 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
27 Reptile Agamidae Draco sumatranus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
28 Reptile Agamidae Gonocephalus liogaster 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
29 Reptile Gekkonidae Cnemaspis sp. 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
30 Reptile Gekkonidae Cyrtodactylus marmoratus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
31 Reptile Gekkonidae Cyrtodactylus majulah 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
32 Reptile Gekkonidae Cyrtodactylus sp.2 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
33 Reptile Gekkonidae Gehyra mutilata 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019

Page 362 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

34 Reptile Gekkonidae Gekko gecko 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019

35 Reptile Gekkonidae Gekko smithii 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
36 Reptile Gekkonidae Gekko sp. 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
37 Reptile Gekkonidae Hemidactylus frenatus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
38 Reptile Gekkonidae Hemidactylus platyurus 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
39 Reptile Gekkonidae Hemiphyllodactylus typus 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
40 Reptile Gekkonidae Ptychozoon kuhlii 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
41 Reptile Gekkonidae Ptychozoon sp. 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
42 Reptile Lacertidae Takydromus sexlineatus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
43 Reptile Scincidae Dasia olivacea 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
44 Reptile Scincidae Lygosoma bowringii 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
45 Reptile Scincidae Eutropis multifasciata 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
46 Reptile Scincidae Eutropis rudis 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
47 Reptile Scincidae Eutropis rugifera 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
48 Reptile Scincidae Eutropis sp. 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
49 Reptile Scincidae Sphenomorphus bowringii 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
50 Reptile Varanidae Varanus bengalensis 2016/12 LC II 17/06/2019
51 Reptile Varanidae Varanus dumerilii 2016/12 NA II 17/06/2019
52 Reptile Varanidae Varanus rudicollis 2016/12 NA II 17/06/2019
53 Reptile Varanidae Varanus salvator 2016/12 LC II 17/06/2019
54 Reptile Acrochordidae Acrochordus javanicus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
55 Reptile Homalopsidae Enhydris enhydris 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
56 Reptile Homalopsidae Homalopsis buccata 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
57 Reptile Colubridae Ahaetulla prasina 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
58 Reptile Colubridae Boiga dendrophila 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
59 Reptile Colubridae Boiga drapiezii 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
60 Reptile Colubridae Boiga jaspidea 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
61 Reptile Colubridae Boiga nigriceps 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
62 Reptile Colubridae Chrysopelea paradisi 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
63 Reptile Colubridae Coelognathus flavolineatus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
64 Reptile Colubridae Coelognathus radiatus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
65 Reptile Colubridae Dendrelaphis caudolineatus 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
66 Reptile Colubridae Dendrelaphis formosus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
67 Reptile Colubridae Dendrelaphis pictus 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
68 Reptile Colubridae Dryocalamus subannulatus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
69 Reptile Colubridae Gongylosoma baliodeirus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
70 Reptile Colubridae Lepturophis albofuscus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
71 Reptile Colubridae Lycodon effraenis 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
72 Reptile Colubridae Lycodon subcinctus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
73 Reptile Colubridae Ptyas korros 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
74 Reptile Colubridae Xenelaphis hexagonotus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
75 Reptile Natricidae Rhabdophis subminiatus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019

Page 363 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

76 Reptile Natricidae Macropisthodon flaviceps 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019

77 Reptile Natricidae Xenochrophis maculatus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
78 Reptile Crocodylidae Crocodylus porosus 2016/12 LC √ II 17/06/2019
79 Reptile Crocodylidae Tomistoma schlegelii 2016/12 VU √ I 17/06/2019
80 Reptile Lamprophiidae Psammodynastes pictus 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
81 Reptile Lamprophiidae Psammodynastes pulverulentus 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
82 Reptile Natricidae Macropisthodon rhodomelas 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
83 Reptile Pythonidae Malayopython reticulatus 2016/12 LC II 17/06/2019
84 Reptile Pareatidae Aplopeltura boa 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
85 Reptile Pareatidae Asthenodipsas malaccanus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
86 Reptile Pareatidae Pareas carinatus 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
87 Reptile Xenopeltidae Xenopeltis unicolor 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
88 Reptile Pythonidae Python curtus 2016/12 LC II 17/06/2019
89 Reptile Pythonidae Python molurus 2016/12 NA II 17/06/2019
90 Reptile Viperidae Calloselasma rhodostoma 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
91 Reptile Viperidae Popeia nebularis 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
92 Reptile Viperidae Trimeresurus sp.1 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
93 Reptile Viperidae Trimeresurus sp.2 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019
94 Reptile Viperidae Tropidolaemus wagleri 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
95 Reptile Elapidae Bungarus flaviceps 2016/12 LC 17/06/2019
96 Reptile Elapidae Naja sumatrana 2016/12 LC II 17/06/2019
97 Reptile Elapidae Ophiophagus hannah 2016/12 VU II 17/06/2019
98 Reptile Geoemydidae Batagur borneoensis 2016/12 CR √ II 17/06/2019
99 Reptile Geoemydidae Cuora amboinensis 2016/12 EN II 17/06/2019
100 Reptile Geoemydidae Cyclemys dentata 2016/12 NT II 17/06/2019
101 Reptile Geoemydidae Heosemys spinosa 2016/12 EN II 17/06/2019
102 Reptile Geoemydidae Orlitia borneensis 2016/12 CR √ II 17/06/2019
103 Reptile Geoemydidae Siebenrockiella crassicollis 2016/12 VU II 17/06/2019
104 Reptile Testudinidae Manouria emys 2016/12 CR √ II 17/06/2019
105 Reptile Trionychidae Amyda cartilaginea 2016/12 VU II 17/06/2019
106 Reptile Trionychidae Pelochelys cantorii 2016/12 EN II 17/06/2019
107 Reptile Trionychidae Trionichidae sp. 2016/12 NA 17/06/2019

Birds

No Family Scientific Name English Name Recorded IUCN GoI (P.106) CITES Last Updated
1 Phasianidae Rollulus rouloul Crested Partridge 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
2 Phasianidae Melanoperdix nigra Black Partridge 2016/12 VU 14/08/2020
3 Phasianidae Synoicus chinensis Blue-breasted Quail 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
4 Phasianidae Gallus gallus Red Junglefowl 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
5 Phasianidae Lophura erythrophthalma Malay Crestless Fireback 2016/12 VU 14/08/2020

Page 364 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

6 Anatidae Dendrocygna javanica Lesser Whistling-duck 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020

7 Anatidae Asarcornis scutulata White-winged Duck 2013/07 EN √ I 14/08/2020
8 Anatidae Aythya fuligula Tufted Duck 2010/04 LC 14/08/2020
9 Columbidae Spilopelia chinensis Eastern Spotted Dove 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
10 Columbidae Macropygia unchall Barred Cuckoo-Dove 2010/04 LC 14/08/2020
11 Columbidae Geopelia striata Zebra dove 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
12 Columbidae Chalcophaps indica Emerald Dove 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
13 Columbidae Treron fulvicollis Cinnamon-headed Green-Pigeon 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
14 Columbidae Treron olax Little Green Pigeon 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
15 Columbidae Treron vernans Pink-necked Green Pigeon 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
16 Columbidae Treron curvirostra Thick-billed Green Pigeon 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
17 Columbidae Treron capellei Large Green-pigeon 2010/04 VU 14/08/2020
18 Columbidae Ducula aenea Green Imperial Pigeon 2013/07 LC 14/08/2020
19 Columbidae Ramphiculus jambu Jambu Fruit Dove 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
20 Podargidae Batrachostomus stellatus Gould's Frogmouth 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
21 Podargidae Batrachostomus poliolophus Short-tailed Frogmouth 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
22 Podargidae Batrachostomus javensis Horsfield's Frogmouth 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
23 Podargidae Batrachostomus cornutus Sunda Frogmouth 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
24 Caprimulgidae Lyncornis macrotis Great Eared Nightjar 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
25 Caprimulgidae Lyncornis temminckii Malaysian Eared Nightjar 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
26 Caprimulgidae Caprimulgus concretus Bonaparte's Nightjar 2016/12 VU √ 14/08/2020
27 Caprimulgidae Caprimulgus affinis Savanna Nightjar 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
28 Caprimulgidae Caprimulgus macrurus Large-tailed Nightjar 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
29 Hemiprocnidae Hemiprocne comata Whiskered Treeswift 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
30 Hemiprocnidae Hemiprocne longipennis Grey-rumped Treeswift 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
31 Apodidae Rhaphidura leucopygialis Silver-rumped Spinetail 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
32 Apodidae Hirundapus giganteus Brown-backed Needletail 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
33 Apodidae Collocalia esculenta Glossy Swiftlet 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
34 Apodidae Aerodramus fuciphagus Edible-nest Swiftlet 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
35 Apodidae Cypsiurus balasiensis Asian Palm Swift 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
36 Apodidae Apus pacificus Pacific Swift 2010/04 LC 14/08/2020
37 Apodidae Apus nipalensis House Swift 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
38 Cuculidae Centropus rectunguis Short-toed Coucal 2016/12 VU √ 14/08/2020
39 Cuculidae Centropus sinensis Greater Coucal 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
40 Cuculidae Centropus bengalensis Lesser Coucal 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
41 Cuculidae Rhinortha chlorophaea Raffles's Malkoha 2013/12 LC 14/08/2020
42 Cuculidae Zanclostomus javanicus Red-billed Malkoha 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
43 Cuculidae Phaenicophaeus diardi Black-bellied Malkoha 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
44 Cuculidae Phaenicophaeus sumatranus Chestnut-bellied Malkoha 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
45 Cuculidae Phaenicophaeus tristis Green-billed Malkoha 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020

Page 365 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

46 Cuculidae Phaenicophaeus curvirostris Chestnut-breasted Malkoha 2014/10 LC 14/08/2020

47 Cuculidae Clamator coromandus Chestnut-winged Cuckoo 2013/10 LC √ 14/08/2020
48 Cuculidae Chrysococcyx Violet Cuckoo 2016/12 LC
xanthorhynchus 14/08/2020
49 Cuculidae Cacomantis sonneratii Banded Bay Cuckoo 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
50 Cuculidae Cacomantis merulinus Plaintive Cuckoo 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
51 Cuculidae Cacomantis variolosus Brush Cuckoo 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
52 Cuculidae Surniculus lugubris Square-tailed 2016/12 LC
Drongo-cuckoo 14/08/2020
53 Cuculidae Cuculus micropterus Indian Cuckoo 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
54 Cuculidae Cuculus canorus Common Cuckoo 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
55 Cuculidae Cuculus saturatus Oriental Cuckoo 2013/07 LC 14/08/2020
56 Rallidae Lewinia striata Slaty-breasted Rail 2010/04 LC 14/08/2020
57 Rallidae Zapornia fusca Ruddy-breasted Crake 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
58 Rallidae Amaurornis phoenicurus White-breasted Waterhen 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
59 Rallidae Gallicrex cinerea Watercock 2014/03 LC 14/08/2020
60 Ciconiidae Leptoptilos javanicus Lesser Adjutant 2016/12 VU √ 14/08/2020
61 Ciconiidae Mycteria cinerea Milky Stork 2011/06 EN √ I 14/08/2020
62 Ciconiidae Ciconia stormi Storm's Stork 2012/06 EN √ 14/08/2020
63 Ardeidae Ixobrychus sinensis Yellow Bittern 2014/10 LC 14/08/2020
64 Ardeidae Ixobrychus cinnamomeus Cinnamon Bittern 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
65 Ardeidae Ixobrychus flavicollis Black Bittern 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
66 Ardeidae Butorides striata Green-backed Heron 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
67 Ardeidae Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-Heron 2018/01 LC 14/08/2020
68 Ardeidae Gorsachius melanolophus Malay Night-Heron 2018/03 LC 14/08/2020
69 Ardeidae Ardeola bacchus Chinese Pond-heron 2010/04 LC √ 14/08/2020
70 Ardeidae Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret 2014/03 LC 14/08/2020
71 Ardeidae Ardea cinerea Grey Heron 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
72 Ardeidae Ardea purpurea Purple Heron 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
73 Ardeidae Ardea sumatrana Great-billed Heron 2010/04 LC √ 14/08/2020
74 Ardeidae Ardea alba Great Egret 2016/12 LC √ 14/08/2020
75 Ardeidae Ardea intermedia Intermediate Egret 2017/01 LC 14/08/2020
76 Ardeidae Egretta garzetta Little Egret 2013/10 LC 14/08/2020
77 Ardeidae Egretta sacra Pacific Reef Egret 2010/04 LC 14/08/2020
78 Pelecanidae Pelecanus philippensis Spot-billed Pelican 2010/04 NT √ 14/08/2020
79 Phalacrocoracidae Microcarbo niger Little Cormorant 2010/04 LC 14/08/2020
80 Anhingidae Anhinga melanogaster Oriental Darter 2010/04 NT 14/08/2020
81 Charadriidae Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden Plover 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
82 Charadriidae Charadrius dubius Little-ringed Plover 2008/11 LC 14/08/2020
83 Charadriidae Charadrius alexandrinus Kentish Plover 2019/01 LC √ 14/08/2020
84 Charadriidae Charadrius mongolus Lesser Sand-Plover 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020

Page 366 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

85 Charadriidae Charadrius leschenaultii Greater Sand-Plover 2019/01 LC 14/08/2020

86 Charadriidae Vanellus indicus Red-wattled Lapwing 2008/11 LC √ 14/08/2020
87 Scolopacidae Calidris ruficollis Red-necked Stint 2004/08 NT 14/08/2020
88 Scolopacidae Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
89 Scolopacidae Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
90 Scolopacidae Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
91 Scolopacidae Tringa totanus Common Redshank 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
92 Scolopacidae Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
93 Scolopacidae Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper 2014/03 LC 14/08/2020
94 Turnicidae Turnix suscitator Barred Buttonquail 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
95 Glareolidae Glareola maldivarum Oriental Pratincole 2004/08 LC √ 14/08/2020
96 Laridae Sternula albifrons Little Tern 2004/08 LC √ 14/08/2020
97 Laridae Gelochelidon nilotica Gull-billed Tern 2018/01 LC √ 14/08/2020
98 Laridae Chlidonias hybrida Whiskered Tern 2016/03 LC √ 14/08/2020
99 Laridae Chlidonias leucopterus White-winged Tern 2016/12 LC √ 14/08/2020
100 Tytonidae Phodilus badius Oriental Bay-Owl 2004/08 LC II 14/08/2020
101 Strigidae Ninox scutulata Brown Boobook 2016/12 LC II 14/08/2020
102 Strigidae Otus lempiji Sunda Scops-owl 2016/12 LC II 14/08/2020
103 Strigidae Strix leptogrammica Brown Wood-owl 2016/12 LC II 14/08/2020
104 Strigidae Bubo sumatranus Barred Eagle-Owl 2016/12 LC II 14/08/2020
105 Strigidae Ketupa ketupu Buffy fish-owl 2014/05 LC II 14/08/2020
106 Accipitridae Elanus caeruleus Black-winged Kite 2014/04 LC √ II 14/08/2020
107 Accipitridae Pernis ptilorhynchus Oriental Honey-buzzard 2013/03 LC √ II 14/08/2020
108 Accipitridae Aviceda jerdoni Jerdon's Baza 2010/04 LC √ II 14/08/2020
109 Accipitridae Aviceda leuphotes Black Baza 2004/08 LC √ II 14/08/2020
110 Accipitridae Spilornis cheela Crested Serpent-eagle 2010/11 LC √ II 14/08/2020
111 Accipitridae Circaetus gallicus Short-toed Snake-eagle 2010/04 LC √ II 14/08/2020
112 Accipitridae Macheiramphus alcinus Bat Hawk 2016/12 LC √ II 14/08/2020
113 Accipitridae Nisaetus nanus Wallace's Hawk-eagle 2016/12 VU √ II 14/08/2020
114 Accipitridae Nisaetus cirrhatus Changeable Hawk-eagle 2014/01 LC √ II 14/08/2020
115 Accipitridae Lophotriorchis kienerii Rufous-bellied Eagle 2017/03 NT √ II 14/08/2020
116 Accipitridae Ictinaetus malaiensis Black Eagle 2016/12 LC √ II 14/08/2020
117 Accipitridae Butastur indicus Gray-faced Buzzard 2018/03 LC √ II 14/08/2020
118 Accipitridae Circus spilonotus Eastern Marsh-harrier 2004/08 LC √ II 14/08/2020
119 Accipitridae Accipiter trivirgatus Crested Goshawk 2014/06 LC √ II 14/08/2020
120 Accipitridae Accipiter soloensis Chinese Sparrowhawk 2016/12 LC √ II 14/08/2020
121 Accipitridae Accipiter gularis Japanese Sparrowhawk 2004/08 LC √ II 14/08/2020
122 Accipitridae Accipiter virgatus Besra 2004/08 LC √ II 14/08/2020
123 Accipitridae Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-eagle 2012/04 LC √ II 14/08/2020
124 Accipitridae Ichthyophaga humilis Lesser Fish Eagle 2004/08 NT √ II 14/08/2020

Page 367 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

125 Accipitridae Icthyophaga ichthyaetus Grey-headed Fish Eagle 2014/12 NT √ II 14/08/2020

126 Accipitridae Haliastur indus Brahminy Kite 2014/06 LC √ II 14/08/2020
127 Accipitridae Milvus migrans Black Kite 2010/04 LC √ II 14/08/2020
128 Trogonidae Harpactes oreskios Orange-breasted Trogon 2016/12 LC √ 14/08/2020
129 Trogonidae Harpactes duvaucelii Scarlet-rumped Trogon 2016/12 NT √ 14/08/2020
130 Trogonidae Harpactes diardii Diard's Trogon 2010/11 NT √ 14/08/2020
131 Trogonidae Harpactes kasumba Red-naped Trogon 2016/12 NT √ 14/08/2020
132 Bucerotidae Rhinoplax vigil Helmeted Hornbill 2007/11 CR √ I 14/08/2020
133 Bucerotidae Buceros bicornis Great Hornbill 2010/11 VU √ I 14/08/2020
134 Bucerotidae Buceros rhinoceros Rhinoceros Hornbill 2007/11 VU √ II 14/08/2020
135 Bucerotidae Anorrhinus galeritus Bushy-crested Hornbill 2010/11 NT √ II 14/08/2020
136 Bucerotidae Anthracoceros malayanus Black Hornbill 2007/11 VU √ II 14/08/2020
137 Bucerotidae Anthracoceros albirostris Oriental Pied Hornbill 2014/03 LC √ II 14/08/2020
138 Bucerotidae Rhabdotorrhinus corrugatus Wrinkled Hornbill 2007/11 EN √ II 14/08/2020
139 Bucerotidae Rhyticeros undulatus Wreathed Hornbill 2016/12 VU √ II 14/08/2020
140 Meropidae Merops viridis Blue-throated Bee-eater 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
141 Meropidae Merops philippinus Blue-tailed Bee-eater 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
142 Coraciidae Eurystomus orientalis Oriental Dollarbird 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
143 Alcedinidae Ceyx erithaca Oriental Dwarf-kingfisher 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
144 Alcedinidae Alcedo meninting Blue-eared Kingfisher 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
145 Alcedinidae Alcedo atthis Common Kingfisher 2010/04 LC 14/08/2020
146 Alcedinidae Pelargopsis capensis Stork-billed Kingfisher 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
147 Alcedinidae Halcyon coromanda Ruddy Kingfisher 2010/04 LC 14/08/2020
148 Alcedinidae Halcyon smyrnensis White-breasted Kingfisher 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
149 Alcedinidae Halcyon pileata Black-capped Kingfisher 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
150 Alcedinidae Todirhamphus chloris Collared Kingfisher 2014/03 LC 14/08/2020
151 Megalaimidae Caloramphus hayii Malay Brown Barbet 2016/12 NT √ 14/08/2020
152 Megalaimidae Psilopogon haemacephalus Coppersmith Barbet 2010/04 LC 14/08/2020
153 Megalaimidae Psilopogon duvaucelii Black-eared Barbet 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
154 Megalaimidae Psilopogon mystacophanos Red-throated Barbet 2010/04 NT √ 14/08/2020
155 Megalaimidae Psilopogon rafflesii Red-crowned Barbet 2016/12 NT √ 14/08/2020
156 Megalaimidae Psilopogon henricii Yellow-crowned Barbet 2010/04 NT √ 14/08/2020
157 Indicatoridae Indicator archipelagicus Malay Honeyguide 2010/04 NT √ 14/08/2020
158 Picidae Sasia abnormis Rufous Piculet 2013/09 LC 14/08/2020
159 Picidae Hemicircus sordidus Grey-and-buff Woodpecker 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
160 Picidae Chrysocolaptes validus Orange-backed Woodpecker 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
161 Picidae Dinopium rafflesii Olive-backed Woodpecker 2010/04 NT 14/08/2020
162 Picidae Dinopium javanense Common Flameback 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
163 Picidae Micropternus brachyurus Rufous Woodpecker 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
164 Picidae Meiglyptes grammithorax Buff-rumped Woodpecker 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020

Page 368 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

165 Picidae Meiglyptes tukki Buff-necked Woodpecker 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020

166 Picidae Chrysophlegma miniaceum Banded Woodpecker 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
167 Picidae Picus puniceus Crimson-winged Woodpecker 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
168 Picidae Dryocopus javensis White-bellied Woodpecker 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
169 Picidae Picoides moluccensis Sunda Pygmy Woodpecker 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
170 Falconidae Microhierax fringillarius Black-thighed Falconet 2016/12 LC √ II 14/08/2020
171 Falconidae Falco tinnunculus Common Kestrel 2016/12 LC √ II 14/08/2020
172 Falconidae Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon 2016/12 LC √ I 14/08/2020
173 Psittacidae Psittinus cyanurus Blue-rumped Parrot 2016/12 NT √ II 14/08/2020
174 Psittacidae Psittacula longicauda Long-tailed Parakeet 2016/12 VU √ II 14/08/2020
175 Psittacidae Loriculus galgulus Blue-crowned Hanging-parrot 2016/12 LC √ II 14/08/2020
176 Pittidae Erythropitta granatina Garnet Pitta 2016/12 NT √ 14/08/2020
177 Pittidae Pitta moluccensis Blue-winged Pitta 2017/04 LC √ 14/08/2020
178 Pittidae Pitta megarhyncha Mangrove Pitta 2016/12 NT √ 14/08/2020
179 Pittidae Pitta sordida Western Hooded Pitta 2016/12 LC √ 14/08/2020
180 Eurylaimidae Corydon sumatranus Dusky Broadbill 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
181 Eurylaimidae Cymbirhynchus Black-and-red Broadbill 2004/08 LC
macrorhynchos 14/08/2020
182 Eurylaimidae Eurylaimus ochromalus Black-and-yellow Broadbill 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
183 Eurylaimidae Eurylaimus harterti Banded Broadbill 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
184 Calyptomenidae Calyptomena viridis Green Broadbill 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
185 Acanthizidae Gerygone sulphurea Golden-bellied Gerygone 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
186 Oriolidae Oriolus xanthonotus Dark-throated Oriole 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
187 Oriolidae Oriolus chinensis Black-naped Oriole 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
188 Pachycephalidae Pachycephala cinerea Mangrove Whistler 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
189 Campephagidae Pericrocotus flammeus Scarlet Minivet 2014/10 LC 14/08/2020
190 Campephagidae Pericrocotus igneus Fiery Minivet 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
191 Campephagidae Coracina striata Bar-bellied Cuckoo-shrike 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
192 Campephagidae Lalage nigra Pied Triller 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
193 Artamidae Artamus leucoryn White-breasted Woodswallow 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
194 Vangidae Philentoma pyrhoptera Rufous-winged Philentoma 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
195 Vangidae Tephrodornis virgatus Large Wood Shrike 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
196 Vangidae Hemipus hirundinaceus Black-winged Flycatcher-shrike 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
197 Aegithinidae Aegithina tiphia Common Iora 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
198 Aegithinidae Aegithina viridissima Green Iora 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
199 Rhipiduridae Rhipidura javanica Sunda Pied Fantail 2016/12 LC √ 14/08/2020
200 Rhipiduridae Rhipidura perlata Spotted Fantail 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
201 Dicruridae Dicrurus aeneus Bronzed Drongo 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
202 Dicruridae Dicrurus paradiseus Greater Racquet-tailed Drongo 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
203 Dicruridae Dicrurus annectens Crow-billed Drongo 2010/04 LC 14/08/2020
204 Dicruridae Dicrurus macrocercus Black Drongo 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020

Page 369 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

205 Monarchidae Hypothymis azurea Black-naped Monarch 2014/10 LC 14/08/2020

206 Monarchidae Terpsiphone affinis Oriental Paradise-flycatcher 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
207 Laniidae Lanius tigrinus Tiger Shrike 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
208 Laniidae Lanius cristatus Brown Shrike 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
209 Laniidae Lanius schach Long-tailed Shrike 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
210 Corvidae Platysmurus leucopterus Malay Black Magpie 2004/08 LC √ 14/08/2020
211 Corvidae Corvus macrorhynchos Large-billed Crow 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
212 Corvidae Corvus enca Slender-billed crow 2014/01 LC 14/08/2020
213 Cisticolidae Cisticola juncidis Zitting Cisticola 2012/12 LC 14/08/2020
214 Cisticolidae Prinia familiaris Bar-winged Prinia 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
215 Cisticolidae Prinia flaviventris Yellow-bellied Prinia 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
216 Cisticolidae Orthotomus sericeus Rufous-tailed Tailorbird 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
217 Cisticolidae Orthotomus atrogularis Dark-necked Tailorbird 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
218 Cisticolidae Orthotomus ruficeps Ashy Tailorbird 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
219 Hirundinidae Hirundo tahitica Pacific Swallow 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
220 Hirundinidae Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
221 Hirundinidae Delichon dasypus Asian House Martin 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
222 Pycnonotidae Brachypodius atriceps Black-headed Bulbul 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
223 Pycnonotidae Tricholestes criniger Hairy-backed Bulbul 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
224 Pycnonotidae Setornis criniger Hook-billed Bulbul 2016/12 VU √ 14/08/2020
225 Pycnonotidae Alophoixus ochraceus Ochraceous Bulbul 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
226 Pycnonotidae Alophoixus bres Brown-cheeked Bulbul 2010/04 NT 14/08/2020
227 Pycnonotidae Iole olivacea Buff-vented Bulbul 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
228 Pycnonotidae Ixos malaccensis Streaked Bulbul 2010/04 NT 14/08/2020
229 Pycnonotidae Alophoixus phaeocephalus Yellow-bellied Bulbul 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
230 Pycnonotidae Pycnonotus simplex Cream-vented Bulbul 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
231 Pycnonotidae Pycnonotus brunneus Red-eyed Bulbul 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
232 Pycnonotidae Pycnonotus plumosus Olive-winged Bulbul 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
233 Pycnonotidae Pycnonotus goiavier Yellow-vented Bulbul 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
234 Pycnonotidae Pycnonotus dispar Ruby-throated Bulbul 2016/12 VU 14/08/2020
235 Pycnonotidae Pycnonotus aurigaster Sooty-headed Bulbul 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
236 Pycnonotidae Pycnonotus erythropthalmos Spectacled Bulbul 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
237 Phylloscopidae Phylloscopus borealis Arctic Warbler 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
238 Zosteropidae Zosterops palpebrosus Oriental White-eye 2010/04 LC 14/08/2020
239 Timaliidae Macronous ptilosus Fluffy-backed Tit-babbler 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
240 Timaliidae Mixornis gularis Pin-striped Tit-babbler 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
241 Timaliidae Cyanoderma erythropterum Chestnut-winged Babbler 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
242 Timaliidae Stachyris nigricollis Black-throated Babbler 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
243 Timaliidae Stachyris maculata Chestnut-rumped Babbler 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
244 Timaliidae Stachyris poliocephala Grey-headed Babbler 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020

Page 370 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

245 Pellorneidae Malacopteron affine Sooty-capped Babbler 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020

246 Pellorneidae Malacopteron albogulare Grey-breasted Babbler 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
247 Pellorneidae Malacopteron cinereum Scaly-crowned Babbler 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
248 Pellorneidae Malacopteron magnirostre Moustached Babbler 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
249 Pellorneidae Malacopteron magnum Rufous-crowned Babbler 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
250 Pellorneidae Kenopia striata Striped Wren-babbler 2010/04 NT 14/08/2020
251 Pellorneidae Malacocincla abbotti Abbott's Babbler 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
252 Pellorneidae Trichastoma bicolor Ferruginous Babbler 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
253 Pellorneidae Trichastoma rostratum White-chested Babbler 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
254 Pellorneidae Trichastoma malaccense Short-tailed Babbler 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
255 Pellorneidae Pellorneum nigrocapitatum Black-capped Babbler 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
256 Leiotrichidae Alcippe brunneicauda Brown Fulvetta 2010/04 NT 14/08/2020
257 Sittidae Sitta frontalis Velvet-fronted Nuthatch 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
258 Sturnidae Agropsar sturninus Purple-backed Starling 2017/03 LC 14/08/2020
259 Sturnidae Acridotheres javanicus Javan Myna 2004/08 VU 14/08/2020
260 Sturnidae Gracula religiosa Common Hill Myna 2016/12 LC √ II 14/08/2020
261 Sturnidae Aplonis panayensis Asian Glossy Starling 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
262 Turdidae Turdus obscurus Eye-browed Thrush 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
263 Muscicapidae Copsychus saularis Oriental Magpie-robin 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
264 Muscicapidae Trichixos pyrropygus Rufous-tailed Shama 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
265 Muscicapidae Kittacincla malabarica White-rumped Shama 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
266 Muscicapidae Muscicapa sibirica Dark-sided Flycatcher 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
267 Muscicapidae Muscicapa dauurica Asian Brown Flycatcher 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
268 Muscicapidae Cyornis umbratilis Grey-chested Jungle-flycatcher 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
269 Muscicapidae Cyornis olivaceus Fulvous-chested Jungle-flycatcher 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
270 Muscicapidae Cyornis turcosus Malaysian Blue Flycatcher 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
271 Muscicapidae Niltava grandis Large Niltava 2018/01 LC 14/08/2020
272 Muscicapidae Larvivora cyane Siberian Blue Robin 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
273 Muscicapidae Ficedula zanthopygia Yellow-rumped Flycatcher 2014/10 LC 14/08/2020
274 Muscicapidae Monticola solitarius Blue Rock-thrush 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
275 Irenidae Irena puella Asian Fairy-bluebird 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
276 Chloropseidae Chloropsis sonnerati Greater Green Leafbird 2016/12 EN √ 14/08/2020
277 Chloropseidae Chloropsis cyanopogon Lesser Green Leafbird 2016/12 NT √ 14/08/2020
278 Chloropseidae Chloropsis moluccensis Blue-winged Leafbird 2016/12 LC √ 14/08/2020
279 Dicaeidae Prionochilus thoracicus Scarlet-breasted Flowerpecker 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
280 Dicaeidae Prionochilus percussus Crimson-breasted Flowerpecker 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
281 Dicaeidae Dicaeum everetti Brown-backed Flowerpecker 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020
282 Dicaeidae Dicaeum chrysorrheum Yellow-vented Flowerpecker 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
283 Dicaeidae Dicaeum trigonostigma Orange-bellied Flowerpecker 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
284 Dicaeidae Dicaeum cruentatum Scarlet-backed Flowerpecker 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020

Page 371 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

285 Nectariniidae Arachnothera crassirostris Thick-billed Spiderhunter 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020

286 Nectariniidae Arachnothera robusta Long-billed Spiderhunter 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
287 Nectariniidae Arachnothera longirostra Little Spiderhunter 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
288 Nectariniidae Arachnothera Purple-naped Spiderhunter 2016/12 LC
hypogrammica 14/08/2020
289 Nectariniidae Arachnothera flavigaster Spectacled Spiderhunter 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
290 Nectariniidae Arachnothera modesta Grey-breasted Spiderhunter 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
291 Nectariniidae Chalcoparia singalensis Ruby-cheeked Sunbird 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
292 Nectariniidae Anthreptes simplex Plain Sunbird 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
293 Nectariniidae Anthreptes malacensis Brown-throated Sunbird 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
294 Nectariniidae Anthreptes rhodolaemus Red-throated Sunbird 2004/08 NT √ 14/08/2020
295 Nectariniidae Leptocoma brasiliana Maroon-bellied Sunbird 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
296 Nectariniidae Leptocoma calcostetha Copper-throated Sunbird 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
297 Nectariniidae Cinnyris jugularis Olive-backed Sunbird 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
298 Nectariniidae Aethopyga siparaja Crimson Sunbird 2016/12 LC √ 14/08/2020
299 Ploceidae Ploceus hypoxanthus Asian Golden Weaver 2010/04 NT 14/08/2020
300 Estrildidae Lonchura striata White-rumped Munia 2004/08 LC 14/08/2020
301 Estrildidae Lonchura leucogastra White-bellied Munia 2010/04 LC 14/08/2020
302 Estrildidae Lonchura malacca Tricoloured Munia 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
303 Estrildidae Lonchura maja White-headed Munia 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
304 Passeridae Passer montanus Eurasian Tree Sparrow 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
305 Motacillidae Anthus rufulus Paddyfield Pipit 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020
306 Motacillidae Motacilla cinerea Grey Wagtail 2016/03 LC 14/08/2020
307 Motacillidae Motacilla tschutschensis Eastern Yellow Wagtail 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020

Plants

No. Family Scientific Name Recorded IUCN GoI (P.106) CITES Last Updated Notes Habits
1 Anacardiaceae Campnosperma coriaceum 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
2 Anacardiaceae Mangifera parvifolia 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 Tree
3 Anisophylleaceae Combretocarpus rotundatus 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 Tree
4 Annonaceae Artabotrys suaveolens 2018/07 NA 14/08/2020 Liana
5 Annonaceae Goniothalamus sp. 2018/07 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
6 Annonaceae Maasia sumatrana 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 syn. Polyalthia sumatrana Tree
7 Annonaceae Xylopia fusca 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
8 Annonaceae Polyalthia? 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
9 Annonaceae Xylopia malayana 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
10 Apocynaceae Alstonia scholaris 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 Tree
11 Apocynaceae Dischidia sp. 2018/07 NA 14/08/2020 Liana

Page 372 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

12 Apocynaceae Hoya elliptica 2018/07 NA 14/08/2020 Liana

13 Apocynaceae Hoya sp.2 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Liana
14 Apocynaceae Leuconotis sp. 2018/07 NA 14/08/2020 Liana
15 Aquifoliaceae Ilex cymosa 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 Tree
16 Aquifoliaceae Ilex hypoglauca 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
17 Araceae Aglaonema nitidum 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Herbs
18 Araceae Alocasia longiloba 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Herbs
19 Araceae Rhapidophora lobbii 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Herbs
20 Araceae Schindapsus sp. 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Liana
21 Arecaceae Caryota mitis 2018/07 LC 14/08/2020 Tree
22 Arecaceae Cyrtostachys renda 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
23 Arecaceae Daemonorops grandis 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Liana
24 Arecaceae Eleiodoxa conferta* 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Shrub
25 Arecaceae Licuala spinosa 2018/07 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
26 Arecaceae Plectocomia elongata 2018/07 NA 14/08/2020 Liana
27 Asparagaceae Dracaena cantleyi 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
28 Asphodelaceae Dianella ensifolia 2018/07 NA 14/08/2020 Herbs
29 Aspleniaceae Asplenium longissimum 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Fern
30 Aspleniaceae Asplenium nidus 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Fern
31 Aspleniaceae Asplenium sp. 2019/10 NA 14/08/2020 TBOT blok B Fern
32 Blechnaceae Blechnum orientale 2018/07 NA 14/08/2020 Fern
33 Blechnaceae Stenochlaena palustris 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Fern
34 Bonnetiaceae Ploiarium alternifolium 2019/07 LC 14/08/2020 Tree
35 Burseraceae Dacriodes sp. 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
36 Burseraceae Santiria laevigata 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 Tree
37 Calophyllaceae Calophyllum cf hosei 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
38 Calophyllaceae Calophyllum ferrugineum 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
39 Cecropiaceae Poikilospermum suaveolens 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Liana
40 Celastraceae Lophopetalum sp. 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
41 Celastraceae Siphonodon celastrinus 2018/07 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
42 Chrysobalanaceae Licania sp. 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
43 Chrysobalanaceae Parastemon urophyllus 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
44 Clusiaceae Garcinia apetala 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
45 Clusiaceae Garcinia bancana 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
46 Clusiaceae Garcinia sp 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
47 Clusiaceae Garcinia sp 1 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
48 Clusiaceae Garcinia urophyllus 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
49 Commelinaceae Pollia sp. 2018/07 NA 14/08/2020 Herbs
50 Ctenolophonaceae Ctenolophon parvifolius 2016/12 VU 14/08/2020 Tree
51 Cyperaceae Carex sp. 2019/01 NA 14/08/2020 Herbs

Page 373 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

52 Cyperaceae Lepironia articulata 2018/07 NA 14/08/2020 Herbs

53 Cyperaceae Scleria sumatrensis 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Herbs
54 Cyperaceae Thoracostachyum bancanum 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Herbs
55 Dilleniaceae Dillenia excelsa 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
56 Dilleniaceae Dillenia pumila 2018/07 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
57 Dipterocarpaceae Anisoptera marginata 2016/12 VU 14/08/2020 Tree
58 Dipterocarpaceae Shorea platycarpa 2016/12 CR 14/08/2020 Tree
59 Dipterocarpaceae Shorea teysmanniana 2016/12 EN 14/08/2020 Tree
60 Dipterocarpaceae Shorea uliginosa 2016/12 VU 14/08/2020 Tree
61 Dipterocarpaceae Vatica pauciflora 2016/12 VU 14/08/2020 Tree
62 Dipterocarpaceae Vatica teysmanniana 2016/12 CR 14/08/2020 Tree
63 Ebenaceae Diospyros buxifolia 2016/12 NA II 14/08/2020 Tree
64 Ebenaceae Diospyros siamang 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
65 Ebenaceae Diospyros sp. 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
66 Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus sp. 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
67 Euphorbiaceae Blumeodendron kurzii 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
68 Euphorbiaceae Blumeodendron tokbrai 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
69 Euphorbiaceae Macaranga bancana 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
70 Euphorbiaceae Macaranga caladiifolia 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
71 Euphorbiaceae Macaranga hosei 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
72 Euphorbiaceae Macaranga pruinosa 2018/07 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
73 Fabaceae Archidendron clypearia 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 Tree
74 Fabaceae Dialium indum 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
75 Fabaceae Ormosia sumatrana 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 Tree
76 Fagaceae Lithocarpus ewyckii 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
77 Fagaceae Lithocarpus sp 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
78 Flagellariaceae Flagellaria indica 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Herbs
79 Gentianaceae Fagraea volubilis 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
80 Gesneriaceae Aeschynanthus parvifolius 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Herbs
81 Hanguanaceae Hanguana malayana 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 Herbs
82 Hypericaceae Cratoxylum arborescens 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 Tree
83 Junglandaceae Engelhardtia serrata 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 Tree
84 Lauraceae Actinodaphne sp. 2015/01 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
85 Lauraceae Litsea gracilipes 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 Tree
86 Lauraceae Litsea grandis 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 Tree
87 Lauraceae Litsea machilifolia 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 Tree
88 Lauraceae Litsea sp 1 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
89 Lauraceae Nothaphoebe coriacea 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
90 Lentibulariaceae Utricularia aurea 2019/01 LC 14/08/2020 Herbs
91 Lycopodiaceae Huperzia phlegmaria 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Fern

Page 374 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

92 Lycopodiaceae Lycopodiella cernua 2018/07 LC 14/08/2020 Fern

93 Magnoliaceae Magnolia sp? 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
94 Malvaceae Durio carinatus 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
95 Malvaceae Sterculia gilva 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
96 Melastomataceae Medinilla crassifolia 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Shrub
97 Melastomataceae Melastoma malabathricum 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Shrub
98 Meliaceae Aglaia rubiginosa 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020 Tree
99 Meliaceae Sandorichum beccarianum 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
100 Menispermaceae Diploclisia cf. glaucescens 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Liana
101 Moraceae Ficus deltoidea 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Shrub
102 Moraceae Ficus spp. 2016/13 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
103 Moraceae Ficus sumatrana 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 Tree
Simmilar to F. spathulifolia
NA but inconspicuously
104 Moraceae Ficus cf tristaniifolia 2018/07 14/08/2020 trinerved Tree
105 Moraceae Ficus xylophylla 2014 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
106 Moraceae Paratocarpus venenosus 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
107 Myristicaceae Horsfieldia crassifolia 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020 Tree
108 Myristicaceae Knema glauca var glauca 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
109 Myristicaceae Knema intermedia 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020 Tree
110 Myristicaceae Myristica elliptica 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 Tree
111 Myristicaceae Myristica lowiana 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020 Tree
112 Myrtaceae Syzygium antisepticum 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Syn. Syzygium cf muelleri Tree
113 Myrtaceae Syzygium incarnatum 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Syn. Syzygium cerinum Tree
114 Myrtaceae Syzygium cf napiforme 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
115 Myrtaceae Syzygium chloranthum 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
116 Myrtaceae Syzygium glaucum 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
117 Myrtaceae Syzygium lineatum 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
118 Myrtaceae Syzygium zeylanicum 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
119 Myrtaceae Syzygium sp 1 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
120 Myrtaceae Syzygium sp_gelam 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
121 Myrtaceae Syzygium sp_jambu 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
122 Myrtaceae Syzygium sp_merah 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
123 Myrtaceae Tristaniopsis merguensis 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
124 Nepenthaceae Nepenthes ampullaria 2016/12 LC II 14/08/2020 Herbs
125 Nepenthaceae Nepenthes gracilis 2016/12 LC II 14/08/2020 Herbs
126 Nepenthaceae Nepenthes rafflesiana 2016/12 LC II 14/08/2020 Herbs
127 Nephrolepidaceae Nephrolepis bisserata* 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Herbs
128 Orchidaceae Acriopsis floribunda 2018/07 NA II 14/08/2020 Herbs
129 Orchidaceae Bromheadia finlaysoniana 2018/07 LC II 14/08/2020 Herbs
130 Orchidaceae Bulbophyllum macrochilum 2018/07 NA II 14/08/2020 Herbs

Page 375 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

131 Orchidaceae Bulbophyllum patens 2018/07 NA II 14/08/2020 Herbs

132 Orchidaceae Bulbophyllum vaginatum 2016/12 NA II 14/08/2020 Herbs
133 Orchidaceae Calanthe triplicata 2018/07 NA II 14/08/2020 Herbs
134 Orchidaceae Cymbidium finlaysonianum 2018/07 NA II 14/08/2020 Herbs
135 Orchidaceae Dendrobium kentrophyllum 2018/07 NA II 14/08/2020 Herbs
136 Orchidaceae Dendrobium leonis 2016/12 NA II 14/08/2020 Herbs
137 Orchidaceae Dendrobium rhodostele 2016/12 NA II 14/08/2020 Herbs
138 Orchidaceae Dendrobium secundum 2018/07 NA II 14/08/2020 Herbs
139 Orchidaceae Dipodium scandens 2019/03 NA II 14/08/2020 Herbs
140 Orchidaceae Eulophia graminea 2018/07 NA II 14/08/2020 Herbs
141 Orchidaceae Grammatophyllum speciosum 2018/07 NA II 14/08/2020 Herbs
142 Orchidaceae Liparis cf. lacerata 2018/07 NA II 14/08/2020 Herbs
143 Orchidaceae Liparis cf. tricallosa 2018/07 NA II 14/08/2020 Herbs
144 Orchidaceae Microsaccus griffithii 2018/07 NA II 14/08/2020 Herbs
145 Orchidaceae Oberonia sp. 2018/07 NA II 14/08/2020 Herbs
146 Orchidaceae Phaius sp. 2016/12 NA II 14/08/2020 Herbs
147 Orchidaceae Vanilla sp. 2018/07 NA II 14/08/2020 Liana
148 Pandanaceae Freycinetia angustifolia 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Herbs
149 Pandanaceae Pandanus atrocarpus 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
150 Pandanaceae Pandanus helicopus 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
151 Pentaphylacaceae Ternstroemia coriacea 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
152 Phyllanthaceae Antidesma coriaceum 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
153 Phyllanthaceae Antidesma montanum 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 Tree
154 Picrodendraceae Austrobuxus nitidus 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
155 Piperaceae Piper betle 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Liana
156 Polygalaceae Xanthophyllum sp. 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
157 Polygalaceae Xanthophyllum stipitatum 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
158 Polypodiaceae Lecanopteris sp. 2018/07 NA 14/08/2020 Fern
159 Polypodiaceae Platycerium coronarium 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Fern
160 Polypodiaceae Platycerium ridleyi 2018/07 NA 14/08/2020 Fern
161 Pteridaceae Acrostichum aureum 2018/07 LC 14/08/2020 Fern
162 Pteridaceae Ceratopteris thalictroides 2018/07 LC 14/08/2020 Fern
163 Rhizophoraceae Carallia brachiata 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
164 Rubiaceae Aidia sp. 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
165 Rubiaceae Lecananthus erubescens 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Shrub
166 Rubiaceae Morinda umbellata 2018/07 NA 14/08/2020 Liana
167 Rubiaceae Myrmecodia sp. 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Herbs
168 Rubiaceae Pavetta cf. indica 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
169 Rubiaceae Psichotria sp. 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
170 Rubiaceae Ridsdalea grandis 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 syn. Rothmannia grandis Tree

Page 376 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

171 Rubiaceae Timonius flavescens 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 Tree

172 Rubiaceae Uncaria sp. 1 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Liana
173 Rubiaceae Uncaria sp. 2 2018/07 NA 14/08/2020 Liana
174 Rutaceae Melicope lunu-ankenda 2016/12 LC 14/08/2020 Tree
175 Rutaceae Tetractomia parvifolia 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
176 Rutaceae Tetractomia tetrandra 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
177 Sapotaceae Madhuca motleyana 2016/12 NT 14/08/2020 Tree
178 Sapotaceae Madhuca sp 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
179 Sapotaceae Madhuca sp 1 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
180 Sapotaceae Palaquium cf ridleyi 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
181 Sapotaceae Palaquium cf walsurifolium 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
182 Sapotaceae Palaquium sp_suntai 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
183 Simaroubaceae Quassia borneensis 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
184 Stemonuraceae Stemonurus scorpioides 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
185 Stemonuraceae Stemonurus secundiflorus 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Tree
186 Tetrameristaceae Tetramerista glabra 2016/12 VU 14/08/2020 Tree
187 Thymelaeaceae Gonystylus bancanus 2016/12 CR II 14/08/2020 Tree
188 Vitaceae Cissus discolor 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Liana
189 Vitaceae Tertrastigma sp. 2016/12 NA 14/08/2020 Liana
190 Zingiberaceae Globa sp. 2018/05 NA 14/08/2020 Herbs

Fish

GoI
No Family Scientific Name Recorded IUCN (P.106) CITES Last Updated
1 Schilbeidae Pseudeutropius brachypopterus 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
2 Schilbeidae Pseudeutropius moolenburgae 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
3 Siluridae Phalacronotus apogon 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
4 Siluridae Kryptopterus limpok 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
5 Siluridae Kryptopterus macrocephalus 2017/1 NT 14/08/2020
6 Siluridae Ompok bimaculatus 2017/1 NT 14/08/2020
7 Siluridae Ompok hypophthalmus 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
8 Siluridae Ompok leiacanthus 2017/1 NT 14/08/2020
9 Siluridae Silurichthys hasselti 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
10 Siluridae Silurichthys phaiosoma 2017/1 NT 14/08/2020
11 Siluridae Wallago leeri 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
12 Siluridae Wallago sp. 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
13 Bagridae Hemibagrus nemurus 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
14 Bagridae Leiocassis aculeatus 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020

Page 377 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

15 Bagridae Leiocassis hosii 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020

16 Bagridae Leiocassis micropogon 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
17 Bagridae Leiocassis sp. 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
18 Bagridae Mystus bimaculatus 2017/1 NT 14/08/2020
19 Bagridae Mystus sp. 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
20 Bagridae Nanobagrus armatus 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
21 Chachidae Chaca bankanensis 2017/1 NT 14/08/2020
22 Claridae Clarias leicanthus 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
23 Claridae Clarias meladerma 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
24 Claridae Clarias nieuhofii 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
25 Claridae Enceloclaria velatus 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
26 Channidae Channa lucius 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
27 Channidae Channa marulioides 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
28 Channidae Channa micropeltes 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
29 Channidae Channa pleuropthalmus 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
30 Channidae Channa striata 2015/10 LC 14/08/2020
31 Pangasidae Pangasius nieuwenhuisii 2017/1 DD 14/08/2020
32 Pangasidae Pangasius sp. 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
33 Cyprinidae Brevibora dorsiocellata 2017/1 EN 14/08/2020
34 Cyprinidae Desmopuntius foerschi 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
35 Cyprinidae Desmopuntius gemellus 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
36 Cyprinidae Desmopuntius hexazona 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
37 Cyprinidae Desmopuntius pentazona 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
38 Cyprinidae Eirmotus octozona 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
39 Cyprinidae Osteochilus spilurus 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
40 Cyprinidae Osteochilus melanopleura 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
41 Cyprinidae Paedocypris progentica 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
42 Cyprinidae Parachela oxygastroides 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
43 Cyprinidae Pectenocypris nigra 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
44 Cyprinidae Pectenocypris rubra 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
45 Cyprinidae Puntius sp. 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
46 Cyprinidae Rasbora sumatrana 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
47 Cyprinidae Rasbora argyrotaenia 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
48 Cyprinidae Rasbora cephalotaenia 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
49 Cyprinidae Rasbora dorsiocellata 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
50 Cyprinidae Rasbora kalochroma 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
51 Cyprinidae Rasbora sp. 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
52 Cyprinidae Rasbora tornieri 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
53 Cyprinidae Rasbora trifasciata 2017/1 DD 14/08/2020
54 Cyprinidae Striuntius lineatus 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020

Page 378 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

55 Cyprinidae Sundadanio axelrodi 2017/1 VU 14/08/2020

56 Cyprinidae Trigonopoma gracile 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
57 Cyprinidae Trigonopoma pauciperforatum 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
58 Cobitidae Kottelatlimia pristes 2017/1 VU 14/08/2020
59 Balitoridae Neohomaloptera cf. johorensis 2017/9 NA 14/08/2020
60 Mastachembelidae Macrognathus maculatus 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
61 Ambassidae Parambassis macrolepis 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
62 Datniodidae Datnioides microlepis 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
63 Nandidae Nandus nebulosus 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
64 Pristolepidae Pristolepis fasciata 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
65 Pristolepidae Pristolepis grootii 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
66 Tetraodontidae Pao palembangensis 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
67 Zenarchopteridae Hemirhamphodon kuekenthali 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
68 Zenarchopteridae Hemirhamphodon phaiosoma 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
69 Zenarchopteridae Hemirhamphodon pogonognathus 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
70 Zenarchopteridae Hemirhamphodon tengah 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
71 Anabantidae Anabas testudineus 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
72 Helostomatidae Helostoma temminckii 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
73 Osphronemidae Belontia hasselti 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
74 Osphronemidae Betta cf. anabatoides 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
75 Osphronemidae Betta cracens 2017/1 CR 14/08/2020
76 Osphronemidae Betta cf. enisae 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
77 Osphronemidae Betta picta 2017/1 NT 14/08/2020
78 Osphronemidae Betta pugnax 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
79 Osphronemidae Betta sp. 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
80 Osphronemidae Betta cf. waseri 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
81 Osphronemidae Luciocephalus pulcher 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
82 Osphronemidae Parosphromenus phoenicurus 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
83 Osphronemidae Sphaerichthys osphromenoides 2017/1 DD 14/08/2020
84 Osphronemidae Trichopodus pectoralis 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
85 Osphronemidae Trichopodus trichopterus 2017/1 LC 14/08/2020
86 Osphronemidae Trichogaster leeri 2017/1 NA 14/08/2020
87 Osphronemidae Trichopsis vittata 2015/12 LC 14/08/2020
88 Cyprinidae Luciosoma cf. trinema 2016/03 NA 14/08/2020

Odonata

GoI
No. Order Family Scientific Name Record IUCN (P.106) CITES Last Updated

Page 379 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

1 Zygoptera Lestidae Orolestes wallacei 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020

2 Zygoptera Argiolestidae Podolestes buwaldai 2020/1 NT 14/08/2020
3 Zygoptera Chlorocyphidae Libellago hyalina 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
4 Zygoptera Euphaeidae Dysphaea dimidiata 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
5 Zygoptera Platycnemididae Copera vittata 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
6 Zygoptera Platycnemididae Elattoneura aurantiaca 2020/1 NT 14/08/2020
7 Zygoptera Platycnemididae Elattoneura coomansi 2020/1 NT 14/08/2020
8 Zygoptera Platycnemididae Prodasineura interrupta 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
9 Zygoptera Platycnemididae Pseudocopera ciliata 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
10 Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Agriocnemis femina 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
11 Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Agriocnemis minima 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
12 Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Agriocnemis pygmaea 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
13 Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Amphicnemis bebar 2020/1 DD 14/08/2020
14 Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Amphicnemis hoisen 2020/1 EN 14/08/2020
15 Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Amphicnemis sp. 2020/1 NA 14/08/2020
16 Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Archibasis melanocyana 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
17 Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Archibasis viola 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
18 Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Ceriagrion auranticum 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
19 Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Ceriagrion cerinorubellum 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
20 Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Ceriagrion praetermissum 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
21 Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Ischnura senegalensis 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
22 Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Mortonagrion aborense 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
23 Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Pseudagrion microcephalum 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
24 Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Pseudagrion williamsoni 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
25 Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Teinobasis ruficollis 2020/1 NT 14/08/2020
26 Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Teinobasis sp. cf suavis 2020/1 NA 14/08/2020
27 Anisoptera Aeshnidae Gynacantha sp. 2020/1 NA 14/08/2020
28 Anisoptera Gomphidae Ictinogomphus acutus 2020/1 VU 14/08/2020
29 Anisoptera Gomphidae Ictinogomphus decoratus 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
30 Anisoptera Macromiidae Epophthalmia vittigera 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
31 Anisoptera Macromiidae Macromia cincta 2020/1 NA 14/08/2020
32 Anisoptera Libellulidae Acisoma panorpoides 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
33 Anisoptera Libellulidae Aethriamanta aethra 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
34 Anisoptera Libellulidae Aethriamanta brevipennis 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
35 Anisoptera Libellulidae Aethriamanta gracilis 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
36 Anisoptera Libellulidae Agrionoptera insignis 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
37 Anisoptera Libellulidae Brachydiplax chalybea 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
38 Anisoptera Libellulidae Brachygonia oculata 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
39 Anisoptera Libellulidae Chalybeothemis fluviatilis 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
40 Anisoptera Libellulidae Crocothemis servilia 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020

Page 380 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

41 Anisoptera Libellulidae Diplacodes trivialis 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020

42 Anisoptera Libellulidae Hydrobasileus croceus 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
43 Anisoptera Libellulidae Lathrecista asiatica 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
44 Anisoptera Libellulidae Nannophya pygmaea 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
45 Anisoptera Libellulidae Neurothemis fluctuans 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
46 Anisoptera Libellulidae Orthetrum chrysis 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
47 Anisoptera Libellulidae Orthetrum sabina 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
48 Anisoptera Libellulidae Pantala flavescens 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
49 Anisoptera Libellulidae Pornothemis serrata 2020/1 NA 14/08/2020
50 Anisoptera Libellulidae Rhodothemis rufa 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
51 Anisoptera Libellulidae Rhyothemis aterrima 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
52 Anisoptera Libellulidae Rhyothemis obsolescens 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
53 Anisoptera Libellulidae Rhyothemis phyllis 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
54 Anisoptera Libellulidae Tholymis tillarga 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
55 Anisoptera Libellulidae Tramea transmarina 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
56 Anisoptera Libellulidae Urothemis signata 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020
57 Anisoptera Libellulidae Zyxomma petiolatum 2020/1 LC 14/08/2020

Summary

Taxa Total CR EN VU CITES GOI

Mammals 76 2 6 11 24 15
Amphibians & Reptiles 107 3 3 4 20 5
Birds 307 1 5 15 45 45
Plants 190 3 1 5 25 0
Fish 88 1 1 2 0 0
Odonata 57 0 1 1 0 0
TOTAL 825 10 17 38 114 65

Page 381 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Appendix 3. Community Reports

The Project will make community and stakeholder reports available to the audit team upon request

Appendix 3a. Report on Household Economic Study Activities and Community Perceptions of
Welfare (Laporan Kegiatan Kajian Ekonomi Rumah Tangga dan Persepsi Masyarakat Tentang
Kesejahteraan)

Appendix 3a is a study which reports on household economic activities and community perceptions
of villages near the project area.

Appendix 3b. Report on Socialisation of the Ecosystem Restoration Management Area (Sosialisasi
Pengelolaan Kawasan Restorasi Ekosistem Riau RER)

Appendix 3b is a report on socialisation of villages near the project area.

Appendix 3c. RER Ethnographic Assessment, Kap. Pelalawan, Province of Riau (KAJIAN SOSIAL
BUDAYA DAN KELEMBAGAAN DI SEKITAR WILAYAH RESTORASI EKOSISTEM
SEMENANJUNG KAMPAR PT. RAPP KABUPATEN PELALAWAN PROVINSI RIAU)

Appendix 3c is a report on ethnographic assessment of the villages near the project area.

Appendix 3d. Report on Mapping Potential and Conflict Resolution in the Riau Ecosystem Restoration
Area (Laporan Pemetaan Potensi Dan Resolusi Konflik Di Kawasan Restorasi Ekosistem
Riau)

Appendix 3d is a report on mapping potential and conflict resolution of villages near the project
area.

Page 382 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Appendix 4. RER Certifications

Appendix 4a. ISO Certification 9001

ISO 9000 - Quality management

Page 383 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Appendix 4b. ISO Certification 14001

ISO 14000 - Environmental management

Page 384 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Appendix 4c. ISO Certifications: OHSAS 18001

ISO Certifications: OHSAS 18001 - International Standard for Occupational Health and Safety
Management Systems.

Page 385 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Appendix 4d. ISO Certification 45001

ISO 45001 - Occupational health and safety

Page 386 of 404

Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Page 387 of 404

Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Page 388 of 404

Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Page 389 of 404

Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Page 390 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Appendix 4e. PEFC Certification

Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification

Page 391 of 404

Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Page 392 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Appendix 4f. Singapore Green Label Certification

Page 393 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Appendix 5. Methods for Aboveground Biomass Inventory / Permanent Sample Plot Establishment

Appendix 5 describes the methods for measuring aboveground biomass and establishment of the
number and location of permanent sample plots. It will be made available to the audit team.

Appendix 6. Methods for Peatland Identification and Peat Thickness

Appendix 6 describes the methods for measuring peat thickness and peatland identification. It will
be made available to the audit team.

Appendix 7. Carbon Assessment Report (2017)

Appendix 7 describes the methods for carbon assessment. It will be made available to the audit
team.

Appendix 8. Aboveground Biomass Inventories of the Project Area

Appendix 8 provides a detailed calculation of aboveground biomass inventories in an excel

spreadsheet. It will be made available to the audit team.

Appendix 9. Peat Inventories of the Project Area

Appendix 9 provides a detailed calculation of peat inventories in an excel spreadsheet. It will be

made available to the audit team.

Appendix 10. Default Values Used in Quantification of GHG Emissions

Appendix 10 provides a list of default values used in quantification of GHG emissions. It will be
made available to the audit team.

Appendix 11. Climate Modelling of the Project Area

Appendix 11 provides detailed calculations of climate of the project area and model calibration for
the project area. It will be made available to the audit team.

Page 394 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Appendix 12. Peat Bulk Density Measurement and Statistical Analysis

Appendix 12 provides a detailed calculation of measurements of peat bulk density and statistical
analysis in an excel spreadsheet. It will be made available to the audit team.

Appendix 13. Subsidence Calculation Method/Model

Appendix 13 provides detailed calculations of peat subsidence and model calibration for the project
area. It will be made available to the audit team.

Appendix 14. Hydrological Modelling

Appendix 14 provides detailed calculations of hydrological modelling and calibration for the project
area. It will be made available to the audit team.

Appendix 15. - Withdrawn

Appendix 16. Baseline Stratification based on Landcover

Appendix 16 provides detailed calculations of the baseline stratification based on landcover. It will
be made available to the audit team.

Appendix 17. Baseline Stratification based on Plantation Development and Drainage

Appendix 17 provides detailed calculations of baseline stratification based on plantation

development and drainage characteristics. It will be made available to the audit team.

Appendix 18. Landcover Classification Analysis of the Project Area

Appendix 18 provides detailed calculations of landcover classification of the project area. It will be
made available to the audit team.

Page 395 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Appendix 19. Proxy Analysis of Reference Regions for Baseline Rate of Deforestation

Appendix 19 provides the proxy analysis of reference regions for estimation of the deforestation
baseline rate. It will be made available to the audit team.

Appendix 20. LiDAR-derived DTM Modelling

Appendix 20 provides detailed calculations of LiDAR-derived DTM modelling. It will be made

available to the audit team.

Appendix 21. Uncertainty Calculations

Appendix 21 provides the detailed calculation of uncertainty analysis. It will be made available to
the audit team.

Appendix 22 Activity Shifting Leakage Calculations and Quantifications

Appendix 22 provides the detailed calculations of leakage due to activity shifting. It will be made
available to the audit team.

Appendix 23. List of Project SOP

Appendix 23 provides a list of SOP for within the RER Carbon Project. All of the SOPS will be made
available to the audit team.

Status
SOP (Standard Operation Procedure) Complete Draft Planned *Update
A. Carbon Stock MRV
1 Aboveground Biomass Inventory Method X
2 Belowground Biomass Inventory Method X
B. Peat Survey MRV
1 Assessment of Peat Thickness X
2 Peat Analysis X
3 Elevation Measurement X
4 Peat Subsidence Monitoring X
5 Peat Moisture Monitoring X
C. Hydrology MRV
RER-PGR-007-PR SOP Monitoring
1 Hydrology X
RER-RPG-003- PR Canal Blocking (Dual
2 Language) rev 00_bms X

Page 396 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

RER-ENV-001-PR River Water Quality

3 Monitoring (Dual Language) rev 00 X
D. Weather Monitoring
1 Temperature Monitoring X
2 Rainfall Monitoring X
3 Humidity Monitoring X
4 Wind Monitoring X
E. Biodiversity Monitoring
1 Biodiversity Survey and Monitoring X
2 Flora Survey X
3 Fauna Survey X
RER-ENV-003-PR Sumatran tiger
4 management in the RER concession area X
F. Community Relations
1 Community Meeting X
2 Community Mapping X
3 Village Monitoring X
4 Livelihood Assessment X
Complaint and Grievance Response
5 Mechanism X
G. Fire and Forest Protection MRV
RER FSS-001-PR Forest and Land Fire
1 Management X
RER-FSS-002- PR FIRE HANDLING CRISIS
2 POSTS (Dual Language) rev 00 X
RER-FSS-003- PR Fixed procedure (Dual
3 Language) rev 00 X
RER-FSS-004- PR Emergency Response
4 (Dual Language) rev 00 X
RER-FSS-005- PR Communication, K3
5 Consultation Participation X
RER-FSS-006- PR Installation and
6 Dissemination X
RER-FSS-008- PR Investigation and
7 Occupational Incident Reporting X
8 RER-FSS-010- PR Regulatory Identification X
9 RER-FSS-011- PR Emergency First Aid X
H. Restoration and Rehabilitation
Wild Canal Blocking & Canal Methods &
1 MRV X
Forest Restoration and Regeneration –
2 Methods & MRV X
RER-NPT-001-PR Nursery Management for
3 Local Type (Dual Language) _MIQ + HA_CP X
RER-RPG-001- PR Identification of
Rehabilitation Areas (Dual Language) rev
4 00-MIQ X
RER-RPG-002- PR Silvicultural Forest
Restoration and Rehabilitation (Dual
5 Language) rev 00 X
RER-ECO-001- PR Forest Restoration rev
6 00 X

Page 397 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

RER-FPT-001-PR Forest Protection (Dual

7 Language) X
I. Planning
RER-PGR-004-PR Preparation of RKU RKT
1 (Dual Language) rev 00_ TBOT X
RER-PGR-004-PR Preparation of RKU RKT
2 (Dual Language) rev 00_RER X
RER-PGR-004-PR Preparation of RKU RKT
3 (Dual Language) rev 00_ SMN X
RER-PGR-004- Preparation of RKU RKT
4 (Dual Language) rev 00_ GAN X
RER-PGR-004- Preparation of RKU RKT
5 (Dual Language) rev 00_ GCN X
RER-PGR-006- PR Aerial Photography Data
6 Collection with Drone (D L) rev 00 X
RER-IMS-003- PR Internal Audit (Dual
5 Language) rev 00 X
J. Others
1 RER-IMS-001-PR Document Management X
RER-IMS-002- PR Record Management
2 (Dual Language) rev 00 X
RER-IMS-003- PR Internal Audit (Dual
3 Language) rev 00 X
RER-IMS-004- PR Regulatory Monitoring,
Analysis and Compliance (Dual Language)
4 rev 00 X
RER-IMS-006- PR Environmental Aspects
Identification and Evaluation (Dual
5 Language) rev 00 X
RER-IMS-007- PR Hazard Identification,
Risk Assessment and Determination of
6 Control Measures rev 00 X
RER-IMS-008- PR Objective Target
7 Programme (Dual Language) rev 00 X
RER-IMS-009- PR Accidents, Incidents,
Nonconformity, Corrective, and
8 Preventive (Dual Language) rev 00 X
RER-IMS-010- PR Management Review
9 (Dual Language) rev 00 X

*Updates are for annual review requirements and other minor updates

Page 398 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

Appendix 24 RER-CP MRV Plan (Detailed)

Appendix 24 provides the detailed monitoring plan for the project and It will be made available to
the audit team.

Appendix 25 Data and Parameters Available at Validation

Appendix 25 provides a list of data and parameters available at validation and It will be made
available to the audit team.

Appendix 26. Data and Parameters Available at Monitoring

Appendix 26 provides a list of data and parameters available at monitoring and It will be made
available to the audit team.

Appendix 27. VCS Non-Permanence Risk Report Tool

Appendix 27 provides the VCS non-permanence risk report tool.

Appendix 28. VCS Non-Permanence Risk Report

Appendix 28 provides the VCS non-permanence risk report.

Appendix 29. Baseline RKU with Year 1-7

Appendix 29 provides the baseline RKU planning for years 1-7

Appendix 30. RER Organization Chart 2021

Appendix 30 provides the RER Organization Chart 2021

Page 399 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

7 REFERENCES
1
APRIL is the former owner of the four concession, however, because of statutory requirements of
Indonesian corporation law, they no longer formally own the concessions or any corporate stock related to the
four concessions. PT. GCN, PT. SMN, PT. TBOT and PT. GAN. They are wholly domestic corporations without any
foreign ownership. Any references in the PD related to APRIL’s policies, procedures, staff etc. are made in the
context that although APRIL sponsors RER-CP activity, both on its own and through its Pulp and Paper business
entity RAPP, that it has no actual corporate share-holding in the four concession and said concession operate as
wholly separate legal entities, but is nonetheless a Project Proponent.
2
RER and RER-Carbon Project are not legal entities as such, they are programmes that are sponsored and
supported as part of APRIL’s conservation efforts in Riau Province, Indonesia.
3
PT GCN is the lead concession of the four concessions that make up RER-Carbon Project; it is the decision
maker and first among equals of the four concession (PT. GCN, PT. SMN, PT. TBOT and PT. GAN). PT. GCN’s
corporate decisions are implemented uniformly through all four concessions and PT GCN takes the lead in all
RER-CP decision making.
4
Geo-Reinfox is a woven Geotextile made of thermoplastic polymers which is specifically processed to
give it a high tensile strength. The addition of UV stabilizers gives Geo-Reinfox the resistance it needs during
construction period. Geo-Reinfox has been used for decades in Indonesia in applications such as road
constructions, slope and wall reinforcements, basal reinforcements, railways, etc. See
https://www.geosinindo.co.id/products accessed on 16 September 2020.
5
Government Regulation 6/2007 Chapter IV, Part 4, Article 38, section 3
6
See appendix 22 for Wild Canal Blocking SOP
7
Wikipedia. 2020. Riau. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riau, accessed on 1 May 2020
8
Wikipedia. 2020. Pelalawan Regency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelalawan_Regency, accessed on 1
May 2020
9
Flora & Fauna International. 2017. HCVA for PT the Best One Unitimber, Jakarta.
10
Wantzen, KM et al. 2008. Riparian wetlands of tropical streams. Tropical Stream Ecology. Elsilver,
London: 199-218.
11
Published in 1983 and re-assessed in 1990, with the cooperation of the Southern Sumatra Geological and
Mineral Exploration Project, a technical cooperation scheme between the overseas development Administration
of the United Kingdom Government and the Ministry of Mines and Energy of Government of Republic of
Indonesia and carried out jointly by the Geological Research and Development Centre, Bandung and British
Geological Survey. Reviewed and edited by M.T. Holder
12
Whitten T, Damanik SJ, Anwar J, Hisyam N. 2000. Freshwater Habitats. In: The ecology of Sumatra,
Indonesia series. Periplus Editions (HK) Ltd.
13
Whitten, A., Damanik, S. J., Anwar, J. & Hisyam, N., 1997. The Ecology of Sumatra. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
14
Whitten, T. & Laumonier, Y. 1997. The vegetation and physiography of Sumatra. Geobotany 22. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. ix 222 pp 3 maps. ISBN 0-7923-3761-1. Price £156.00
(hardback). Journal of Tropical Ecology, 14(5): 723-724. doi:10.1017/S0266467498290523.
15
Whitten, A., Damanik, S. J., Anwar, J. & Hisyam, N., 1997. The Ecology of Sumatra. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
16
Anderson, J., 1963. The Flora of the Peat Swamp Forest of Sarawak and Brunei, Including a Catalogue of
All Recorded Species of Flowering Plants, Ferns, and Fern Allies. Singapore Garden Bulletin, Volume 20, pp. 131-
228.
17
Page, S. E., Rieley, J. O., Shotyk, O. W. & Weiss, D., 1999. Interdependence of peat and vegetation in a
tropical peat swamp forest. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 354 (1391),
pp. 1885-1897.
18
See appendix 3 for full list of flora and fauna
19
Indonesia Secretariat for Sustainable Development Goals, Roadmap of SDGs Indonesia, a highlight,
(2018), Ministry of National Development and Planning.
https://www.unicef.org/indonesia/media/1626/file/Roadmap%20of%20SDGs.pdf accessed on 01 Oct 2020.
20
Indonesia Secretariat for Sustainable Development Goals, supra, p. 80.

Page 400 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

21
Indonesia Secretariat for Sustainable Development Goals, supra, p. 81.
22
Indonesian NDCs as provided to the UNFCCC Secretariat:
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/163_Indonesia%20Input%20for%20TalanPoPpra%20Dialogue%
20-%202%20April%202018%20clean.pdf accessed on 01 Oct 20120P
23
The RER-Carbon Project contracted with validators prior to the 19 March 2020 Safeguards deadline. The
Project does not anticipate that the inclusion of the Safeguards Section into this VCS-PD will be part of the
assessed VCS-PD. Nonetheless, the Project determined that it was useful and appropriate to show that the
Project considered community opinions, was pro-community and did not create any net harm. This section
was included as “indicative” despite the VCS-PD not having to have complete a Section 2 Safeguards as part of
its VCS PD process.
24
Badan Pusat Statistik, 2018. Luas Wilayah Provinsi Riau Menurut Kabupaten/Kota, 2016-2019 (Km2 )
https://riau.bps.go.id/dynamictable/2018/01/25/45/luas-wilayah-provinsi-riau-menurut-kabupaten-kota-
2016-2019-km2-.html accessed on 02 July 2020
25
Badan Pusat Statistik, 2018. Angka Harapan Hidup (AHH) menurut Jenis Kelamin Provinsi Riau, 2010-
2019. https://riau.bps.go.id/dynamictable/2018/04/17/71/angka-harapan-hidup-ahh-menurut-jenis-kelamin-
provinsi-riau-2010-2019.html
26
Aris Ananta; Evi Nurvidya Arifin; M. Sairi Hasbullah; Nur Budi Handayani; Agus Pramono 2015.
Demography of Indonesia's Ethnicity. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies dan BPS. Statistics Indonesia
27
Reiche, J, et al. 2018. Characterizing Tropical Forest Cover Loss Using Dense Sentinal-1 Data and Active
Fire Alerts. Remote Sensing (10): 777.
28
Restorasi Ekosistem Riau – APRIL. 2016. Sosialisasi Pengelolaan Kawasan.
29
Yusti Aiden. 2016. Kajian Ekonomi Rumah Tangga & Persepsi Kesejahteraan Masyarakat Di 6 (Enam)
Desa. Kelurahan Di Semenanjung Kampar
30
This issue relates RAPP and not RER. The claimed areas is outside of the RER Project Area.
31
Singapore Green Label adheres to Forestry Stewardship Council standards (FSC)
32
Krisnawati et al. (2015) Standard Model for estimating GreenHouse Gas Emissionsfrom Forests and
Peatlands in Indonesia (version 2) Table 2-3. Indonesian Nantional Carbon Accounting System
33
https://data.globalforestwatch.org/datasets/d52e0e67ad21401cbf3a2c002599cf58_10?geometry=98.45
4%2C-1.818%2C112.264%2C2.027 accessed on 22 Mar 2021 and MoARI [Ministry of Agriculture Republic of
Indonesia], Indonesia peat lands, Accessed through Global Forest [www.globalforestwatch.org]
34
159 plots were derived from the results of the Carbon Stock Estimation Interim Report (ver. 8) (2017)
and an additional 10 plots were as a result of the 2020 limited biomass assessment conducted by APRIL in Q3
2020.
35
J. Penman, M. Gytarsky, T. Hiraishi, T. Krug, D. Kruger, R. Pipatti, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, K.
Tanabe, and F. Wagner. 2003. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Good Practice Guidance for
LULUCF, CH5, Section 5.2 Identifying and Quantifying Uncertainties. (eds) IGES, Japan.
36
see http://webgis.menlhk.go.id:8080/kemenhut/index.php/id/peta/peta-cetak/59-peta-cetak/314-
peta-kesatuan-hidrologi-gambut , and http://webgis.menlhk.go.id:8080/kemenhut/index.php/id/peta/peta-
interaktif
37
Hooijer, A., Vernimmen, R., Mawdsley, N., Page, S., Mulyadi, D., Visser, M., 2015. Assessment of impacts
of plantation drainage on the Kampar Peninsula peatland, Riau. Deltares Report 1207384 to Wetlands
International, CLUA and Norad.
38
Ritung, S., Wahyunto, Nugroho, K., Sukarman, Hikmatullah, Suparto, Tafakresnanto, C.
2011. Peta Lahan Gambut Indonesia Skala 1:250.000 (Indonesian peatland map at the scale 1:250,000).
Indonesian Center for Agricultural Land Resources Research and Development, Bogor, Indonesia.
39 Warren, M., Hergoualc’h, K., Kauffman, J.B. et al. 2017. An appraisal of Indonesia’s immense peat

carbon stock using national peatland maps: uncertainties and potential losses from conversion. Carbon
Balance Manage 12, 12.
40
Anshari, G. Z., Afifudin, M., Nuriman, M., Gusmayanti, E., Arianie, L., Susana, R., Nusantara, R. W.,
Sugardjito, J., and Rafiastanto, A. 2010. Drainage and land use impacts on changes in selected peat properties
and peat degradation in West Kalimantan Province, Indonesia, Biogeosciences, 7, 3403–3419,
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-3403-2010.
41
Page, S & Rieley, J & Banks, C. 2010. Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon pool.
Global Change Biology. 17.

Page 401 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

42
Hooijer, A. et al. 2012. Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences 9, 1053–
1071
43
The section on the difference between canals and rail systems has been included in order to ensure the
reader is able to understand and differentiate on remotely sensed images canals and what may appear to be
canals but are in fact legacy rail systems. They appear to be very similar in RS images and sometimes can
generally can only be distinguished on the ground with ground truthing activity. Without the distinction being
made it would be easy to believe that there are far more legacy canals in the RER landscape then there in
actuality.
44
In 2015, three experimental dams were established as a pilot activity, only one survived, two collapsed.
Project activity related to dam construction began in 2016.
45
The determination of WRC categories is made in reference to VM0007 version 1.6, Table 3.
46
Hooijer, A. et al. 2015. Assessment of impacts of plantation drainage on the Kampar Peninsula peatland,
Ria. Deltares Report 1207384 to Wetlands International. CLUA and Norad.
47
Govt. Regulation 6/2007
48
Although APRIL originally acquired the concession licenses, they are now separate legal entities and not
formally part of the APRIL group because of the restrictions on foreign entities owning ER concessions.
49
Carbon Stock Estimation in RER Concessions Interim Report. (2017)see Annex 8
50
Ambar, T.R., Hamindy, R. & Thamrin. 2008. Pendugaan Kandungan Karbon pada Acacia crassicarpa di
Hutan Rawa Gambut (Studi Kassus di IUPHHK-HT PT. RAPP, Kabupaten Pelalawan). J. Environ. Sci. 1: 26-32.
51
Supra Hooijer, A. et al. 2012:34.
52
Renstra Kementerian LHK. 2018. Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup Republik Indonesia. Rencana Strategis
Kementerian Lingkungan.
53
Hooijer, A. et al. 2015. Assessment of impacts of plantation drainage on the Kampar Peninsula peatland,
Ria. Deltares Report 1207384 to Wetlands International. CLUA and Norad.
54
Miettinen J, et al, (2016) Land cover distribution in the peatland of Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra and
Borneo in 2015 with changes since1990, Global Ecology & Conservation, 67-78, p73.
55
Statistik Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia. 2018. Statistik Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan 2018. Table 4.25:
168.
56
Statistik Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia. 2018. Statistik Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan 2018. Table 4.29:
172.
57
Mizuno, K. et al. 2016. Catastrophe and Regeneration in Indonesia’s Peatlands. NUS Press: 173-174.
58
The Ministry of Forestry (MoF) was combined in 2015 to include the Environment and renamed to the
Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) at that time. The two terms, MoF andMoEF are used
interchangeably here.
59
Statistik Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia. 2018. Statistik Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan 2018. Table 4.24:
167.
60
Verchot, L. V et al. 2010. Reducing forestry emissions in Indonesia. CIFOR: 1–12.
61
Ramesh, V. et al. 2015. Peat Characteristics and its Impact on Oil Palm Yield. Wageningen Journal of Life
Sciences. 72-73: 33-40.
62
Fitzherbert, E.B., M. Struebig, A. Morel et al. 2008. How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity?
Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 23(10): 538-545.
63
Wicke, B., R. Sikkema, V. Dornburg et al. 2011. Exploring land-use changes and the role of palm oil
production in Indonesia and Malaysia. Land-use Policy. 28(1): 193-206.
64
GAPKI. 2019. About Gabungan Pengusaha Kelapa Sawit Indonesia. IPOA. Retrieved from
https://gabki.id/
65
Food & Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asian Pacific Region. 2020. Milestone and Plan of FFTC-AP
Project. http://ap.fftc.agnet.org/ap_db.php?id=996. Accessed 1 June 2020.
66
Supra Hooijer, A. et al. 2015:31.
67
Supra Hooijer, A. et al. 2015:26.
68
Susanti, A. 2016. Oil Palm Expansion in Riau Province, Indonesia. Eburon Academic Publishers: 106-108.
69
Supra. GAPKI. 2019.
70
Supra. Food & Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asian Pacific Region. 2020.
71
Supra Hooijer, A. et al. 2015:26.
72
Supra Hooijer, A. et al. 2015:31.

Page 402 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

73
Widyaningrum, IK. 2012. Financing Strategy of National Park Model. International Institute of Social
Studies.
74
The Jakarta Post. 2019. Pertamina finds new oil, gas reserves in Q1 exploration.
https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2019/04/10/pertamina-finds-new-oil-gas-reserves-in-q1-
exploration.html.
75
World Bank. 2018. Report on Indonesia Mining Sector Diagnostic: 20.
76
Mineral Commodity Summaries. 2018. United States Geological Survey. BP Statistical Review of World
Energy 2017.
77
Gasandoil.com. 2002. Riau province takes control of CPP oil block.
http://www.gasandoil.com/news/south_east_asia/8f30ec4d38479fdc7cd90e47fb926b4e accessed 16 June
2020.
78
PT. BSP. 2019. Block CPP: Operation. https://www.bsp.co.id/block-cpp/ accessed 16 June 2020.
79
Sugih Energy. 2018. Sugih Energy Company Profile 2018. https://www.sugihenergy.com/ 14-15.
80
ESDM OneMap. 2020. Daftar Peta. https://geoportal.esdm.go.id/indonesia-overview/ accessed on 17
June 2020.
81
Sugih Energy. 2015. MNK Selat Panjang PSC Block (Selat Panjang Non-Conventional).
http://www.sugihenergy.com/index.php/operations/mnk-selat-panjang-psc accessed on 16 June 2020.
82
Small farms do exist in the landscape close to the rivers/water’s edge and also on the populated
islands directly to the north of the Kampar Peninsula. They are generally related to the local villages that lie
at low elevations and where mineral soils allow for a variety of tree and non-tree crops including but not
limited to rubber, oil palm, banana, cassava, chiles, tomatoes and other local food crops.
83
Enrici, E.M. & Hubacek, K. 2018. Challenges for REDD+ in Indonesia: a case study of three project sites.
Ecology & Society. 23(2):7 & Boer, H.J. 2018. The role of government in operationalising markets for REDD+ in
Indonesia. Forest Policy & Economics. 86:4-12.
84
Hamrick, K. 2015. State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets. Ecosystem Marketplace https://www.forest-
trends.org/publications/ahead-of-the-curve/ accessed on 12 June 2020.
85
Donofrio, S. et al. 2019. Financing Emissions Reductions for the Future, State of the Voluntary Carbon
Markets. Ecosystem Marketplace. https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/carbon-markets/ accessed 11
June 2020.
86
Ibid Ekawati, S. et al.
87
Lang, C. 2014. APRIL’s ecological Armageddon continues in Sumatra and North Kalimantan. REDD-
Monitor. https://redd-monitor.org/2014/06/05/aprils-ecological-armageddon-continues-in-sumatra-and-
north-kalimantan/ accessed on 10 June 2020.
88
REDD Myths. 2008. A critical review of proposed mechanisms to reduce emissions from deforestation
and degradation in developing countries. Friends of the Earth International, Issue 114. sourced from
https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/15-foei-forest-full-eng-lr.pdf accessed on 13 June 2020
89
Lovera-Bilderbeck, Simone, Agents. 2019. Assumptions and Motivations Behind REDD+. Edward Elgar
Publishing. sect. 4.3 & Lang, C. 2009. REDD: CO2lonialism of Forests. REDD-Monitor. sourced from
https://redd-monitor.org/2009/04/16/redd-co2lonialism-of-forests/, accessed on 10 June 2020
90
ASEANPEAT. 2016. Indonesia declares national park in top palm oil-producing province. ASEANPEAT.
http://www.aseanpeat.net/newsmaster.cfm?&menuid=11&action=view&retrieveid=3372 accessed on 15 July
2020.
91
UNFCCC/CCNUCC-CDM Executive Board, A/R Methodolocical Tool “Combined tool to identify the baseline
scenario and demonstrate additionality in A/R CDM project activities (version 01) EB 35 Report Annex 19, 19 Oct
2007, p 4.
92
ibid UNFCCC/CCNUCC-CDM Executive Board, p 7.
93
ibid UNFCCC/CCNUCC-CDM Executive Board, p 11.
94
Margono, B. A., Turubanova, S., Zhuravleva, Potapov, P., Tyukavina, A., Baccini, A., Goetz, S., Hansen, M.
C. (2012). Mapping and monitoring deforestation and forest degradation in Sumatra (Indonesia) using Landsat
time series data sets from 1990 to 2010. Environ. Rest. Lett., 7:034010.
95
Potapov PV, Turubanova SA, Hansen MC, Adusei B, Broich M, Altstatt A, Mane L and Justice CO. (2012).
Quantifying forest cover loss in Democratic Republic of the Congo 2000–2010 with Landsat ETM+data. Remote
Sensing of Environment. 122: 106- 116.

Page 403 of 404

 Project Description: VCS Version 4.0

96
Rocha, A. V. and Shaver, G. R. 2009. Advantages of a two band EVI calculated from solar and
photosynthetically active radiation fluxes. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology.
doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.03.016
97 Universitas Riau 2019. Laporan Akhir Peat Depth Survey Project at Lanscape di Kesatuan Hidrologi

Gambut Sungai Siak – Sungai Kampar. Pusat Studi Lingkungan Hidup, Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian
kepada Masyaratkat Universitas Riau
98
The majority of IUPHHK-HT licenses are held by Asia Pulp & Paper Co. Ltd (APP) and Asia Pacific Resources
Internationl (APRIL) Group. Both own pulp and paper mills in Riau Province. License holders that are not directly
owned by these main two concession hoders typically are dedicated suppliers to oneor the other, as there are
no other pulp and paer production facilities in Riau Province.
99
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2016. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. Table 4.3 Carbon Fraction of Aboveground Forest Biomass
100
Supra Warren. et al. 2017.
101
VMD0042 ver. 1.1 §5.1.1 at bullet point 5 (p. 6) indicates that “In peatland rewetting and conservation
projects, emissions from peat fires are always lower compared to the baseline emissions and emissions from
peat fires can conservatively be neglected. Accounting for peat fires emissions in the baseline is therefore
optional.
102
Supra Indonesian National Carbon Accounting System. 2015:1
103
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2016. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. Table 4.7 Above-Ground Biomass in Forests
104
Supra Warren. et al. 2017.
105
Supra Indonesian National Carbon Accounting System. 2015:1
106
Professor Gusti Zakaria Anshari is the current Professor, Chair of Environmental Studies of the Faculty of
Agriculture, Tanjungpura University (UNTAN). He is an internationally renowned peat expert and has written
and contributed to 51 publications on research specifically to tropical peatland science. He is the lead author of
2 chapters of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, currently due for release in 2022.
107
VMD0016 v1.2 (X-STR) requires 4 measurements per km2, which effectively means 5,200 depth point
measurements in the 130,000 ha (1,300 km2) Project area. The methodological requirement of VMD0016 at
§5.3.1 is neither reasonable nor necessary to produce an accurate peat depth map.

Page 404 of 404